environmental assessment for hypersonic technology vehicle 2 … · 2011-10-11 · minotaur iv lite...

- F i n a l -

Environmental Assessment for Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2

Flight Tests

Prepared for: Tactical Technology Office Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Arlington, Virginia

and

Developmental Planning Directorate Space and Missile Systems Center Los Angeles Air Force Base, California Prepared by: Acquisition Civil/Environmental Engineering Space and Missile Systems Center Los Angeles Air Force Base, California

April 2009

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

18. NUMBER OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

28-04-2009 Final NEPA Document

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

EAF-2009-01

Mr. Thomas Huynh SMC/EAFV

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

May 2007 to Apr 2009 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

W9113M-08-D-001 Final Environmental Assessment for Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 Flight Tests

5b. GRANT NUMBER N/A

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

N/A 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

N/A Huynh, Thomas (SMC/EAFV)

5e. TASK NUMBER Kriz, Joseph (Teledyne Solutions, Inc.)

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

Teledyne Solutions, Inc. 5000 Bradford Drive NW, Suite 200 Huntsville, AL 35805

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT 483 North Aviation Boulevard NUMBER(S)

El Segundo, CA 90245-2808 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Prepared for: DARPA Tactical Technology Office, Arlington, VA, and SMC/XR, Los Angeles Air Force Base, CA

This EA documents the potential environmental impacts of conducting two Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2) flight tests to support development and demonstration of hypersonic technologies. Both HTV-2 missions would be launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, using existing rocket booster systems. Following booster separation, the HTV-2 would glide at hypersonic velocities in the upper atmosphere, prior to an ocean impact near US Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site in the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

14. ABSTRACT

a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE Mr. Thomas Huynh

SAR 159 (310) 653-1223

This page intentionally left blank.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYPERSONIC TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE 2

FLIGHT TESTS AGENCIES: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and United States (US) Air Force (USAF) BACKGROUND: The DARPA and the USAF prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences of conducting Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2) flight tests from Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB) in California (CA) to the US Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA)/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site (RTS) in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). The attached EA, which is hereby incorporated by reference, was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Executive Order 12114 (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508), 32 CFR Part 989 (Environmental Impact Analysis Process), and the Environmental Standards and Procedures for US Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) Activities in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The DARPA and the USAF are researching hypersonic aerodynamics and control systems to enable a wide variety of future capabilities currently unavailable for rapid global response. The HTV-2 is just one step in a series of program flight experiments to explore hypersonic technology and its applications. The purpose of the HTV-2 flight test missions is to demonstrate aerodynamic principles, guidance and control theories, high-temperature materials, and thermal protection systems for long duration, hypersonic flight in the upper atmosphere. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES: The Proposed Action is to conduct two HTV-2 flight tests to support development and demonstration of hypersonic technologies. As a rocket payload, each HTV-2 test bed vehicle would be launched from Vandenberg AFB using a Minotaur IV Lite booster. Following launch over the Pacific Ocean, the HTV-2 vehicle would separate from the booster and glide at hypersonic velocities in the upper atmosphere towards the USAKA/RTS in the RMI. Upon reaching the terminal end of each flight, the vehicle is expected to impact within the Broad Ocean Area (BOA) approximately 40 to 80 nautical miles (74 to 148 kilometers) north of USAKA/RTS. With the exception of floating debris, there are no plans to recover the HTV-2 vehicles following ocean impact. Both flight tests are scheduled to occur in calendar year 2009. As part of test preparations for each flight test, support vessels and free-floating sensors would be deployed temporarily in or near the BOA impact area, and a mobile, land-based telemetry system might be deployed temporarily to Wake Island. In addition to the Proposed Action, the EA also analyzes the No Action Alternative, which serves as the baseline against which the Proposed Action is evaluated. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The DARPA and the USAF assessed potential impacts of the Proposed Action at Vandenberg AFB, within the over-ocean flight corridor, and at USAKA/RTS and the Marshall Islands. Because environmental issues associated with the proposed HTV-2 flight tests vary widely at each location, the resources analyzed in each case also vary. For Vandenberg AFB, the following resources could be affected and are analyzed in the document: air quality, noise, biological resources, cultural resources, health and safety, and hazardous materials and waste management. For USAKA/RTS, noise, biological resources, and health and safety are analyzed. Within the over-ocean

FONSI-1

flight corridor, the global atmosphere and biological resources are assessed. The analyses for each location are summarized as follows. Vandenberg AFB Air emission levels from HTV-2 program operations and launches would not exceed de minimis (minimal importance) thresholds for criteria pollutants, be regionally significant, or contribute to a violation of Vandenberg AFB’s air operating permits. In addition, no exceedances of air quality or health-based standards for non-criteria pollutants are anticipated. Noise from launches would be infrequent, very short in duration, and have little effect on the CA Community Noise Equivalent Level for this area. Because the launch vehicle flight trajectories would be in a westerly direction, the sonic booms would not impact the mainland or the northern Channel Islands. Based on prior monitoring studies, the rocket launches are expected to have a negligible, short-term impact on seals and sea lions, most sea and shore birds, and other protected species on base. Site modifications would not require excavations or other ground disturbance; thus, activities are not expected to impact known archaeological sites. Modifications and use of historic facilities would be minimal and short term. The HTV-2 program flight tests represent routine types of activities at Vandenberg AFB. The launches would not lead to Environmental Justice concerns. Allowable public risk limits for launch-related debris would be extremely low. By adhering to established and proven safety standards and procedures, the level of risk to military personnel, contractors, and the general public would be minimal. All program-related hazardous and non-hazardous wastes would be properly disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Hazardous material and waste-handling capacities would not be exceeded, and management programs are not expected to change. In terms of cumulative impacts, the two proposed HTV-2 program launches would represent a 10.5 percent increase in the number of launches at Vandenberg AFB in 2009. Each launch, however, represents a short-term, discrete event that occurs at different times and at different locations across the base. Over-Ocean Flight Corridor and the Global Environment Regarding potential effects on the global atmosphere, emissions of ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases would be negligible compared to anthropogenic releases worldwide. The limited amount of emissions would not contribute significantly to cumulative global warming or stratospheric ozone depletion. Although the propagation of sonic booms underwater could cause auditory effects in marine animals and sea turtles, the effects are considered insignificant because of the limited area and duration of potential exposure to adverse sound levels, and the low density of animals in the open ocean. The probability for animal injuries from falling rocket debris can also be considered negligible. Because launches over the Pacific Ocean represent discrete events that occur at different times and affect different areas of the ocean, no cumulative impacts to marine life are expected. USAKA/RTS Local RMI communities would be exposed to HTV-2 vehicle sonic booms, but only once within each community and at sound levels well within US Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards for impulse noise.

FONSI-2

Deployment of vessels and free-floating rafts (with optical and/or acoustical sensors and telemetry equipment onboard) in the BOA would have little or no impact on marine species. Just as for the over-ocean environment, sonic booms are unlikely to adversely affect marine mammals and sea turtles in the BOA. The probability for animal injuries from HTV-2 vehicle impacts in the ocean can also be considered negligible. HTV-2 test preparations at USAKA/RTS would not introduce new types of activities or increase levels of risk to support personnel. The proposed HTV-2 flight tests and impacts in the Marshall Islands would be conducted using the same USAKA/RTS range safety standards as those applied to other flight-test programs. Allowable public risk limits for flight vehicle debris are extremely low. As for cumulative impacts, the proposed HTV-2 flight tests and ocean impacts would be conducted in a manner similar to that of other flight-test programs at USAKA/RTS. The two HTV-2 flight tests, however, would have minimal overlap with other programs in terms of affected areas and potential for cumulative impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING ACTIONS: Although no significant or other major impacts are expected to result from implementation of the Proposed Action, the DARPA and the USAF identified some specific environmental management and monitoring actions to minimize the level of impacts that might occur at Vandenberg AFB and at USAKA/RTS. These activities include use of environmentally preferred and/or recycled materials whenever possible; briefing contractors and base support personnel on the sensitivity of cultural resources; and monitoring for marine mammals and sea turtles during ocean operations. Section 4.4 of the EA summarizes these and other measures to be implemented as part of the Proposed Action. PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT: At Vandenberg AFB, CA and at USAKA/RTS in the Marshall Islands, the DARPA and the USAF published an availability notice for public review of the Draft EA and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in local newspapers on or about March 12, 2009, initiating a 30-day review period that ended on April 13, 2009. The DARPA and USAF placed copies of the Draft EA and the enclosed Draft FONSI at local libraries in California and in the RMI. The draft documents were also available over the Internet. Following completion of the public review period, all comments received were considered and recommended changes were incorporated into the Final EA. POINT OF CONTACT: The point of contact for questions, issues, and information relevant to the EA for HTV-2 Flight Tests is Mr. Thomas Huynh, SMC/EAFV, 483 North Aviation Boulevard, El Segundo, CA, 90245-2808. Mr. Huynh also can be reached by calling (310) 653-1223, by facsimile at (310) 653-1226, or by e-mail at [email protected]. CONCLUSION: An analysis of the Proposed Action concludes that its implementation will not have a significant environmental impact on the human and natural environment, either by itself or cumulatively with other actions. After thoroughly considering the facts herein, the undersigned finds that the Proposed Action is consistent with existing environmental policies and objectives set forth in NEPA and its implementing regulations. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Action is not required.

FONSI-3

mailto:[email protected]

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYPERSONIC TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE 2

FLIGHT TESTS AGENCY: United States Air Force (USAF) APPROVED: __________________________________ __________________ SUSAN K. MASHIKO, DATE Brigadier General, USAF Vice Commander Space and Missile Systems Center

AGENCY: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) APPROVED: __________________________________ __________________ ROBERT F. LEHENY DATE Acting Director, DARPA

FONSI-4

Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 Final Environmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page TABLE OF CONTENTS i ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1

1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Background 2 1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action 2 1.4 Need for the Proposed Action 2 1.5 Scope of the Environmental Assessment 2 1.6 Related Environmental Documentation 3 1.7 Decisions to be Made 3 1.8 Interagency Coordination and Consultations 4 1.9 Public Notification and Review 5

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 7

2.1 Proposed Action 7 2.1.1 Flight Vehicle Description 7

2.1.1.1 Minotaur IV Lite 7 2.1.1.2 Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 10

2.1.2 Demonstration Flight Tests 11 2.1.2.1 Launch Site Preparations and Operations 11 2.1.2.2 Flight Scenarios 15 2.1.2.3 Terminal Phase Preparations and Operations 17

2.2 No Action Alternative 22 2.3 Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration 22 2.4 Comparison of Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and

No Action Alternative 23 2.5 Identification of the Preferred Action 23

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 27 3.1 Vandenberg Air Force Base 27

3.1.1 Air Quality 28 3.1.2 Noise 32 3.1.3 Biological Resources 34 3.1.4 Cultural Resources 39 3.1.5 Health and Safety 40 3.1.6 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 42

3.2 Over-Ocean Flight Corridor and the Global Environment 44 3.2.1 Global Atmosphere 44 3.2.2 Biological Resources 45

3.3 US Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site and the Marshall Islands 48

3.3.1 Noise 49 3.3.2 Biological Resources 49 3.3.3 Health and Safety 52

i


4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 55 4.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action 55

4.1.1 Vandenberg Air Force Base 56 4.1.1.1 Air Quality 56 4.1.1.2 Noise 58 4.1.1.3 Biological Resources 60 4.1.1.4 Cultural Resources 65 4.1.1.5 Health and Safety 67 4.1.1.6 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 68

4.1.2 Over-Ocean Flight Corridor and the Global Environment 69 4.1.2.1 Global Atmosphere 69 4.1.2.2 Biological Resources 70

4.1.3 US Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site and the Marshall Islands 74

4.1.3.1 Noise 74 4.1.3.2 Biological Resources 76 4.1.3.3 Health and Safety 78

4.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative 79 4.3 Cumulative Effects 80

4.3.1 Vandenberg Air Force Base 80 4.3.2 Over-Ocean Flight Corridor and the Global Environment 82 4.3.3 US Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site and the Marshall Islands 82

4.4 Summary of Environmental Management and Monitoring Actions 83

5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES 87 6.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED 95 7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 97 8.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST 99 APPENDICES Appendix A Agency Correspondence A-1 Appendix B Species of Concern and Other Protected Species on South Vandenberg AFB, CA B-1 Appendix C Special Status Species Occurring on Land and within the Shallow Waters of the Republic of the Marshall Islands C-1 Appendix D Air Emissions Methodology and Calculations D-1 Appendix E Sonic Boom Methodology E-1 Appendix F Comments and Responses on the Draft Environmental Assessment F-1

ii


iii

LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Locations for Proposed Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 Flight Tests 3 2-1 Minotaur IV Lite Vehicle 8 2-2 Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 10 2-3 Facilities Proposed to Support the HTV-2 at Vandenberg AFB, CA 12 2-4 Representative HTV-2 Over-Ocean Flight Paths 16 2-5 Representative HTV-2 Flight Paths near USAKA/RTS in the Marshall Islands 18 2-6 Representative Raft Sensor System 19 2-7 US Army Landing Craft Utility Vessels 20 2-8 US Army Vessel Worthy 20 2-9 S-band Transportable Ground System Antenna 21 3-1 Location of Vandenberg AFB, CA 27 3-2 Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Noise Sources and Public Responses 33 3-3 Protected Species and Sensitive Habitat near SLC-8 at Vandenberg AFB, CA 35 4-1 Predicted A-Weighted Sound Exposure Levels for Minotaur IV Lite Launches from Vandenberg AFB, CA 59 4-2 Illustration of the Relative Underwater Radial Distances for Shock/Sound Wave Effects on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles 72 4-3 Representative Sonic Boom Footprint from HTV-2 Impact in the Broad Ocean Area 75

LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Newspaper Publications for the Notice of Availability 5 2-1 Solid-Propellant Rocket Motors for Minotaur IV Lite Vehicle 9 2-2 HTV-2 System Characteristics 10 2-3 List of Facilities Proposed to Support the HTV-2 at Vandenberg AFB, CA 11 2-4 Potential Mobile Assets to be used near USAKA/RTS in the Marshall Islands 19 2-5 Comparison of Potential Environmental Consequences 24 3-1 Air Quality Standards and Ambient Air Concentrations at or near Vandenberg AFB, CA 29 3-2 2001 Area and Point Source Emissions for Santa Barbara County, CA 31 3-3 2002 Ozone Precursor Emissions for Santa Barbara County, CA 31 3-4 2006 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions for Vandenberg AFB, CA 32 3-5 Threatened and Endangered Species near SLC-8 at Vandenberg AFB, CA 37 3-6 Archaeological Sites in Relation to Proposed HTV-2 Support Facilities at Vandenberg AFB, CA 39 3-7 Cold War Sites Potentially Affected by HTV-2 Activities at Vandenberg AFB, CA 40 3-8 Protected Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Species Occurring within the North Pacific Over-Ocean Flight Corridor 46 3-9 Protected Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Species Occurring within the Broad Ocean Area of the Marshall Islands 53 4-1 Resources Analyzed in Detail by Location 55 4-2 Estimated Emissions of Criteria Pollutants for the Proposed Action 56 4-3 Exhaust Emissions from Two Minotaur IV Lite Booster Launches 58 4-4 Estimated Underwater Radial Distances for the Onset of TTS and PTS in Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles from Minotaur IV Lite Component Impacts in the Ocean 73 4-5 Estimated Underwater Radial Distances for the Onset of TTS and PTS in Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles from HTV-2 Vehicle Ocean Impacts 77 4-6 Launch Rate Forecast for Vandenberg AFB, CA 80


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ABRES Advanced Ballistic Reentry System AFB Air Force Base AFI Air Force Instruction AFOSH Air Force Occupational Safety and Health AFSPC Air Force Space Command Al2O3 Aluminum Oxide AQCR Air-Quality Control Region ASEL A-Weighted Sound Exposure Level AST Office of Commercial Space Transportation BOA Broad Ocean Area C Celsius CA California CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB California Air Resources Board CCC California Coastal Commission CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFC Chlorofluorocarbons CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 Methane CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species Cl Chlorine ClO Chlorine Oxide CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CY Calendar Year DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency dB Decibel dBA A-weighted Decibel DOD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy DOT Department of Transportation EA Environmental Assessment EDMS Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPPSO Economic Policy, Planning, and Statistics Office ESA Endangered Species Act F Fahrenheit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register ft Feet gal Gallon GCA Guidance and Control Assembly GFE Government Furnished Equipment

iv


GHG Greenhouse Gases GMD Ground-Based Midcourse Defense H2 Hydrogen H2O Water HAER Historic American Engineering Record HCl Hydrogen Chloride HTV Hypersonic Technology Vehicle ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan IPF Integrated Processing Facility IRF Integration Refurbishment Facility IRP Installation Restoration Program kg Kilogram km Kilometer kph Kilometers per Hour lb Pound lbm Pound-Mass LBP Lead-Based Paint LCU Landing Craft Utility LOA Letter of Authorization LTO Landing and Take-off m Meter MBCA Migratory Bird Conservation Act MDA Missile Defense Agency mi Mile MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MPA Marine Protected Areas mph Miles per Hour N2 Nitrogen N2O Nitrous Oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service nmi Nautical Mile NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTAM Notice to Airmen NOTMAR Notice to Mariners NOX Nitrogen Oxides NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands O Free Oxygen Atom O2 Oxygen O3 Ozone OEPPC Office of Environmental Planning and Policy Coordination OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSP Orbital/Sub-Orbital Program PAM Payload Adapter Module Pb Lead PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

v


vi

PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter PPF Payload Processing Facility ppm Parts per Million psf Pounds per Square Foot PTS Permanent Threshold Shift RCC Range Commanders Council RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands ROI Region of Influence RSS Raft Scoring System RTS Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site SBCAPCD Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District SEL Sound Exposure Level SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SLC Space Launch Complex SMC Space and Missile Systems Center SMR State Marine Reserve SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SOC Species of Concern sqft Square Feet SRS SRS Technologies SSI Spaceport Systems International STGS S-band Transportable Ground System SW Space Wing SWI Space Wing Instruction TB Technical Bulletin tpy Tons per Year TTS Temporary Threshold Shift TVC Thrust Vector Control UES USAKA Environmental Standards UNEP-WCMC United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring

Centre UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization US United States USAF US Air Force USAKA US Army Kwajalein Atoll USASMDC/ARSTRAT US Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic

Command USASSDC US Army Space and Strategic Defense Command USAV US Army Vessel USC US Code USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service USN US Department of the Navy VAFB Vandenberg Air Force Base VOC Volatile Organic Compound WMO World Meteorological Organization XR Developmental Planning Directorate μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter µPa microPascal


1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION In a joint effort, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the United States (US) Air Force (USAF) Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Developmental Planning Directorate (XR), propose to conduct two experimental flight tests of the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2). Flight-testing the test bed vehicle would support US development of hypersonic technologies for a wide variety of future aerospace capabilities currently unavailable.

The Purpose of an Environmental Assessment

An Environmental Assessment (EA) is prepared by a Federal agency to determine whether an action it is proposing would significantly affect any portion of the environment. The intent of an EA is to provide project planners and Federal decision-makers with relevant information on the impacts that a proposed action might have on the human and natural environments. If the study finds no significant impacts, then the agency shall record the results of that study in an EA and publish a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The agency may then proceed with the action. However, if the results of the EA indicate that there would be potentially significant impacts associated with the action, then the agency must issue a Notice of Intent and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Both HTV-2 missions would be launched from facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), California (CA), using existing rocket booster systems. Following booster separation, the HTV-2 would glide at hypersonic velocities in the upper atmosphere, prior to an ocean impact near US Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA)/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site (RTS) in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the results of a study of the potential environmental effects resulting from these two flight tests. In support of the DARPA and the SMC/XR, the SMC Environmental Management Branch of Acquisition Civil/Environmental Engineering determined that an EA is required to assess the potential environmental effects from the launch preparations, flight tests, and post-test activities associated with the HTV-2. This EA was prepared in accordance with the following regulations, statutes, and standards:

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 1969)

Executive Order 12114 (Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions) (Office of the President, 1979)

The President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508) (CEQ, 2007)

Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR Part 989) (USAF, 2007a) Environmental Standards and Procedures for US Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA)

Activities in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 10th Edition (US Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command [USASMDC/ARSTRAT], 2006), hereafter referred to as the USAKA Environmental Standards or UES

1


The Compact of Free Association, as Amended, between the Government of the United States of

America and the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, signed into law by President George W. Bush, December 17, 2003 (48 United States Code [USC] 1921).

1.2 BACKGROUND In May 2003, the DARPA established a memorandum of agreement with the USAF to initiate the Falcon program—a technology development program to address high priority mission areas and applications, including global presence and space lift. As part of the Falcon program, the DARPA and the USAF are researching hypersonic aerodynamics and control systems to enable a wide variety of future capabilities currently unavailable for rapid global response. Research for the development and demonstration of hypersonic technologies will include high lift-to-drag technologies; high temperature materials; thermal protection systems; and guidance, navigation, and control. The HTV-2 is just one step in a previously planned series of Falcon program flight experiments to explore hypersonic technology and its applications. 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Falcon program provides for the development of a hypersonic technology test bed vehicle for validating in-flight, hypersonic technologies. The purpose of the two HTV-2 flight test missions is to demonstrate aerodynamic principles, guidance and control theories, high-temperature materials, and thermal protection systems for long-duration, hypersonic flight in the upper atmosphere. 1.4 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION An objective of the Falcon program is to focus on hypersonic technology development and spur progress in this critical area for our nation’s defense. The program’s HTV flight tests are needed to validate theoretical models for hypersonic aerodynamics, and guidance and control techniques. As part of the incremental demonstration of this technology, the HTV-2 represents just one of a series of hypersonic technology test beds to be used to verify baseline technologies for future flight tests. 1.5 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This EA documents the environmental analysis of conducting two HTV-2 flight tests to support development and demonstration of hypersonic technologies. As a rocket payload, each HTV-2 test bed vehicle would be launched from Vandenberg AFB using a Minotaur IV Lite booster. Following launch over the Pacific Ocean, the HTV-2 vehicle would separate from the booster and glide at hypersonic velocities in the upper atmosphere towards the USAKA/RTS in the RMI. Figure 1-1 shows the geographic locations of these sites. Upon reaching the terminal end of each flight, the vehicle would impact within the Broad Ocean Area (BOA) approximately 40 to 80 nautical miles (nmi) (74 to 148 kilometers [km]) north of USAKA/RTS. Plans are to conduct both flight tests in the calendar year (CY) 2009 timeframe. The EA analyzes the potential environmental effects that might result from rocket motor transportation, pre-flight preparations, flight tests, ocean impacts, and post-test activities associated with the two HTV-2 missions. For both flight tests, existing support buildings and facilities would be used with limited modifications required.

2


Alaska

Vandenberg AFB, CA United States (launch site) Pacific Ocean

Per the CEQ and USAF regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(d) and 32 CFR 989.8(d), respectively), this EA also analyzes the No Action Alternative that serves as the baseline from which to compare the Proposed Action. Under the No Action Alternative, the two HTV-2 flight tests would not be conducted. 1.6 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION The Acquisition Civil/Environmental Engineering Branch, Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles AFB, relied heavily on existing NEPA documents to prepare this EA. These documents are listed below and cited in the EA where applicable:

Final Environmental Assessment for Minuteman III Modification (USAF, 2004)

Final Environmental Assessment for the Orbital/Sub-Orbital Program (USAF, 2006). 1.7 DECISIONS TO BE MADE Supported by the information and environmental analysis presented in this EA, the DARPA and the USAF will decide whether to conduct the two HTV-2 flight tests, or to select the No Action Alternative. If the HTV-2 missions proceed, decisions on how to implement the tests will depend on individual

USAKA/RTS, Republic of the Marshall Islands

(terminal impact area)

Map not to scale

Hawaii

Australia

Equator

Wake Island

Figure 1-1. Locations for Proposed Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 Flight Tests

3


mission needs, range requirements, test asset availability, and other logistical considerations and constraints. 1.8 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND CONSULTATIONS Ongoing interagency coordination is integral to the preparation of this EA. For the analysis effort, the USAF requested support from the USASMDC/ARSTRAT as a cooperating agency because of the potential for HTV-2 activities to adversely affect biological and other environmental resources at USAKA/RTS. Written correspondence from both the USAF and USASMDC/ARSTRAT regarding this agreement is provided in Appendix A (pages A-2 and A-4). Beginning in June 2007, the DARPA and the USAF entered into pre-consultation discussions with the Pacific Islands Regional Offices of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), both located in Honolulu, Hawaii. Pursuant to the requirements of the USAKA Environmental Standards, the DARPA and the USAF (with USASMDC/ARSTRAT support) held meetings and teleconferences with the agencies to discuss the potential for environmental effects from the proposed HTV-2 flight test activities along the over-ocean flight corridor and in the Marshall Islands. The discussions also served to identify possible mitigation measures to minimize the effects on biological resources. In May 2008, the USAF provided the USFWS and NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Offices with an earlier draft copy of this HTV-2 EA (dated May 2008) for their review and in preparation for pre-consultation meetings held on June 4, 2008 in Honolulu. In response to the June 2008 meeting and follow-on correspondence, the USFWS Pacific Islands Office provided comments on the earlier draft HTV-2 EA. In their letter dated August 14, 2008 (see Appendix A, page A-5), the USFWS concluded that the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in significant impacts on fish and wildlife resources. Although the USFWS had concerns over potential use of Landing Craft Utility vessels for beach landings at some island locations, this activity is no longer proposed. Following a June 2008 meeting, the USAF initiated informal consultations with the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office, as required by Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC 1531-1544), because of potential effects on ESA-listed marine mammal species. In their response letter dated October 28, 2008 (see Appendix A, page A-7), the NMFS concluded that the two proposed HTV-2 flight tests are not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species or their designated critical habitat. Findings on specific issues are detailed in the letter and are also discussed in Chapter 4.0 of this EA. Also, in September 2008, Vandenberg AFB personnel wrote to the Permits, Conservation, and Education Division at NMFS Headquarters to confirm that no monitoring of pinnipeds on San Miguel Island of the northern Channel Islands would be needed during the HTV-2 launches. Under the marine mammal programmatic take permit issued to Vandenberg AFB (74 Federal Register [FR] 6236-6244), the base is required to monitor pinnipeds on the northern Channel Islands when launch-related sonic booms over the islands generate surface-level overpressures greater than 1 pound per square foot (psf). In an electronic mail response to Vandenberg AFB, dated November 6, 2008, the NMFS agreed that monitoring on San Miguel Island is not required (see Appendix A, page A-18). The monitoring of pinnipeds on Vandenberg AFB, however, is still required. Although there are several Federally listed threatened and endangered species occurring at Vandenberg AFB that could be affected by the Proposed Action, base biologists concluded that reinitiation of formal consultations with the USFWS in Southern California was not needed because there are existing USFWS Biological Opinions in place and conditions at the HTV-2 launch site have not substantially changed. In

4


accordance with 50 CFR Part 402, no Biological Assessment is required and there is no further consultation obligation. 1.9 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW In accordance with the CEQ (2007) and USAF (2007a) regulations for implementing NEPA, the DARPA and the USAF solicited comments on the Draft EA from interested and affected parties. A Notice of Availability for the Draft EA, and the enclosed Draft FONSI, was published in local newspapers for both Vandenberg AFB and USAKA/RTS (see Table 1-1).

Table 1-1. Newspaper Publications for the Notice of Availability

Country or State City/Town Newspaper

Santa Barbara Santa Barbara News-Press

Lompoc Record California Santa Maria

Santa Maria Times

Majuro Marshall Islands Journal Republic of the Marshall Islands

USAKA/RTS Kwajalein Hourglass

Copies of the Draft EA/Draft FONSI were placed at local libraries and were available over the Internet. A list of agencies, organizations, and libraries that were sent copies of the draft documents is provided in Chapter 8.0. Following the 30-day public review period (as specified in the newspaper notices), comments received were considered in the preparation of the Final EA and the recommended changes were incorporated, as appropriate. Appendix F of this Final EA contains a reproduction of the written comments received, along with individual responses to each comment. A copy of the Final EA and the enclosed signed FONSI has been sent to those agencies, organizations, and individuals who provided comments on the Draft EA/Draft FONSI, or who specifically requested a copy of the final documents. The Final EA and signed FONSI are also available over the Internet at http://www.htv-2.com for a limited time.

5

http://www.htv-2.com/



6


2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

Two actions are assessed in this EA: the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Within this chapter, Section 2.1 provides a description of the Proposed Action, including the Minotaur IV Lite booster, the HTV-2 test vehicle, the launch site, flight scenarios, and terminal phase activities. Section 2.2 provides a description of the No Action Alternative. Alternatives to the Proposed Action that were considered and eliminated from further study are discussed in Section 2.3. A summary comparison of the environmental consequences associated with the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative is presented in Section 2.4. Lastly, identification of the Preferred Action is presented in Section 2.5. 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION 2.1.1 FLIGHT VEHICLE DESCRIPTION For each of the two HTV-2 flight test missions, the test vehicle payload would be launched from Vandenberg AFB into the upper atmosphere on a Minotaur IV Lite booster. Descriptions of both the booster and HTV-2 vehicle are presented in the sections that follow. 2.1.1.1 Minotaur IV Lite The Minotaur IV Lite is a modified intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that uses the first three Peacekeeper ICBM solid propellant stages. Unlike the full Minotaur IV vehicle, the “Lite” version does not have a fourth-stage rocket motor. Use of the Minotaur IV and other Peacekeeper-derived launch vehicles was previously analyzed in the Final Environmental Assessment for the Orbital/Sub-Orbital Program (USAF, 2006), hereafter referred to as the OSP EA. Analysis findings presented in the OSP EA identified no significant environmental effects from launching up to two Peacekeeper-derived vehicles per year from Vandenberg AFB. The Minotaur IV Lite would consist of three main vehicle sections: a Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) 3-stage solid-propellant booster, Guidance and Control Assembly (GCA), and Payload Assembly. The overall vehicle length would be approximately 78 feet (ft) (23.8 meters [m]), with a maximum diameter of 7.7 ft (2.3 m) and a weight of approximately 195,000 pounds (lb) (88,400 kilograms [kg]), not including the mass of the HTV-2 payload. A diagram of the Minotaur IV Lite booster vehicle is provided in Figure 2-1. Nearly the same as the Minotaur IV Lite, the now deactivated Peacekeeper ICBM has an extensive flight history with over 50 launches from Vandenberg AFB since 1983. The first-stage motor to be used on the Minotaur IV Lite is also the same as or equivalent to those previously used for Taurus missions launched from Vandenberg AFB and for the Athena Program, which conducted launches from Vandenberg AFB and other ranges. Further discussions on key components of the Minotaur IV Lite are provided in the following sections. 2.1.1.1.1 Solid-Propellant Booster The Minotaur IV Lite uses the Peacekeeper ICBM booster with three solid propellant rocket motor stages. Information on each motor’s dimensions, propellant weight, chemical components, and Department of

7


Payload Fairing

Inter-stage

DIMENSIONS Stage 3 Motor Assembly

Length: approx. 78 ft Stage 2 Motor Assembly Max Diameter: 7.7 ft

Stage 1 Motor Assembly

Figure 2-1. Minotaur IV Lite Vehicle Defense (DOD)/US Department of Transportation (DOT) explosive classification is provided in Table 2-1. The motor casings are made primarily of KEVLAR® and carbon epoxy. The DOD explosive classification and division determines the method by which the rocket propellants and other ordnance are shipped and stored.1 As shown in Table 2-1, the individual motors have a hazard classification/division of 1.3 or 1.1. When the motors are stored or stacked together (such as for launch), however, the combined explosives rating is 1.1. In accordance with DOD 6055.09-STD (DOD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards), this method of classification limits risks and decreases the chance of unintended catastrophic detonation. During powered flight, each rocket motor uses a Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system (steering mechanism) for pitch and yaw control. The TVC system on all three rocket motors uses individual gas generators, with igniters, to power a hydraulically-actuated moveable nozzle that alters the thrust vector. Up to several gallons of hydraulic fluid are contained in each motor TVC system. The base of the Stage-1 motor would be supported on a launch stool prior to launch. Inter-stages are used to connect some of the stages. A narrow raceway and cable system runs along the exterior of the stages and the inter-stages. Small amounts of ordnance, in the form of linear explosive assemblies, separate the

1 US DOT regulations (49 CFR 173.56(b)(2)(i)) require the DOD to hazard classify items in accordance with Joint Technical Bulletin (TB) TB-700-2, Department of Defense Ammunition and Explosives Hazard Classification Procedures. TB-700-2 sets forth the detailed procedures for hazard classifying ammunition and explosives for transportation and storage in accordance with US DOT regulations, North Atlantic Treaty Organization guidelines, and United Nations recommendations.

8


Table 2-1. Solid-Propellant Rocket Motors for Minotaur IV Lite Vehicle

Propellant

Stage Motor Diameter

ft (m) Length ft (m) Quantity (approx.)

lb (kg) Main Components

DOD/DOT Classification

1st SR-118 7.7 (2.3) 27.6 (8.4) 98,462 (44,662) Ammonium Perchlorate, Aluminum, Hydroxyl-

Terminated Polybutadiene 1.3 1

2nd SR-119 7.7 (2.3) 19.7 (6.0) 54,138 (24,557) Ammonium Perchlorate, Aluminum, Hydroxyl-

Terminated Polybutadiene 1.3

3rd SR-120 7.7 (2.3) 10.8 (3.3) 15,584 (7,069)

Ammonium Perchlorate, Aluminum,

Cyclotetramethylene Tetranitramine, Nitroglycerine,

Polyethylene Glycol

1.1 2

1 A 1.3 hazard classification applies to materials with the potential for mass fire and minor blast or fragment. 2 A 1.1 hazard classification applies to materials with the potential for mass explosion.

stages during flight. Other ordnance carried onboard would include motor igniter assemblies and an ordnance destruct package that initiates a thrust termination action if a launch anomaly occurs. 2.1.1.1.2 Guidance and Control Assembly The GCA directs the course of the launch vehicle in flight. Components contained within this system include the flight computer, telemetry transmitter, telemetry multiplexer, dual flight termination receivers, radar transponder, batteries, and harnesses. Onboard transmitter (radio frequency) power output varies from 10 to 400 Watts (peak). 2.1.1.1.3 Payload Assembly Located at the top of the launch vehicle, the Payload Assembly would encapsulate the HTV-2 test vehicle. The test vehicle attaches to the Payload Adapter Module (PAM) at the base of the assembly. A two-piece protective shroud, or fairing (composed of graphite/epoxy and aluminum), encloses and protects the payload prior to and during the vehicle’s ascent after launch. The standard Payload Assembly measures approximately 20 ft (6.1 m) in length, with a maximum diameter of 7.7 ft (2.3 m). Maximum payload mass capability for the Minotaur IV Lite, including separation hardware, is approximately 3200 lb (1452 kg), depending on individual mission requirements. During flight, a gas operated thruster system is activated to separate the fairing from the launch vehicle. Once the fairing is removed, payload separation from the PAM occurs. 2.1.1.1.4 Batteries To provide electrical power for the Minotaur IV Lite, eight nickel-cadmium batteries are carried in the GCA. The battery weights range from 3 to 12 lb (1.4 to 5.4 kg) each. Two batteries are for command destruct systems, two are for ordnance, and the remainder are for avionics power.

9


2.1.1.2 Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 The HTV-2 vehicle represents a test bed to demonstrate hypersonic flight in the upper atmosphere. The vehicle would be designed to fit inside of the Minotaur IV Lite Payload Assembly (fairing), and its mass at launch would be well within the payload capability of the Minotaur IV Lite booster (see Section 2.1.1.1.3). Figure 2-2 shows the basic shape of the HTV-2 vehicle, and Table 2-2 lists the vehicle’s key system characteristics. Figure 2-2. Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2

Table 2-2. HTV-2 System Characteristics

Structure Aluminum, titanium, steel, tantalum, tungsten, carbon fabric, silica, and other alloys that include approximately 0.35 ounces (10 grams) of beryllium, 4.0 lb (1.8 kg) of chromium, and 10.3 lb (4.7 kg) of nickel

Communications Various 5 to 20 Watt (radio frequency) transmitters; maximum 900 Watt radio frequency pulse

Power Up to four lithium ion and lithium thionyl chloride batteries, each weighing between 1 and 40 lb (0.5 and 18.5 kg)

Propulsion Approximately 3 lb (1.4 kg) of pressurized nitrogen gas

Other Ten small Class C (1.4) electro-explosive devices for mechanical systems operation

Per Table 2-2, hazardous materials used in the HTV-2 vehicle would consist of small quantities of toxic metals, batteries, and small explosive devices. No solid or liquid propellants, radioactive materials, or other ordnance would be carried in the vehicle. Each battery would be fully environmentally qualified, including safeguards for containing accidental hazardous battery casing leakage, or electrical anode/cathode shorting that could result in overheating and explosion. The nitrogen gas cylinders would have adequate safety factors for proof and burst pressures in accordance with MIL-STD-1411A

10


(Inspection and Maintenance of Compressed Gas Cylinders). All small explosive devices would be handled in accordance with DOD 6055.09-STD to avoid accidental activation and limit risks of injury to humans and the environment. 2.1.2 DEMONSTRATION FLIGHT TESTS The DARPA and the USAF propose to conduct two HTV-2 demonstration flight tests, referred to as Missions A and B. This section describes: (1) the launch preparations and operations to occur at Vandenberg AFB; (2) the HTV-2 flight scenarios over the Pacific Ocean; and (3) the terminal phase preparations and operations to occur at or near USAKA/RTS. 2.1.2.1 Launch Site Preparations and Operations Vandenberg AFB is the headquarters of the 30th Space Wing, which conducts space and missile test launches, and operates the Western Range.2 The base hosts a variety of Federal agencies and commercial aerospace companies and activities, including the Spaceport Systems International (SSI) Commercial Spaceport. In support of the HTV-2 flight tests at Vandenberg, a combination of USAF and commercially operated facilities would be used, including the SSI Commercial Launch Facility (referred to as Space Launch Complex [SLC] 8). The facilities that would be used in support of HTV-2 are listed in Table 2-3 and shown on Figure 2-3. Most of these facilities were previously analyzed in the OSP EA for Minotaur IV and other Peacekeeper-derived missions (USAF, 2006).

Table 2-3. List of Facilities Proposed to Support the HTV-2 at Vandenberg AFB, CA

Facility / Building Planned Function Site Modifications and

Construction

Launch Facilities

SSI Commercial Launch Facility, (Space Launch Complex [SLC] 8) (Building 240) 1 Launch Site None

Other Support Facilities

SSI Integrated Processing Facility (IPF) (Building 375) 11 Launch Control None

Remote Launch Control Center (Building 8510) Alternate

Launch Control None

Astrotech Payload Processing Facility (PPF) (Building 1032) Payload Processing None

Integration Refurbishment Facility (IRF) (Building 1900) Booster Processing Minor building modifications

Rail Transfer Facility (Facility 1886) Motor Transfer None 1 Commercial building/facility licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration/Office of Commercial Space Transportation.

2 The Western Range extends from the CA Coast to the Indian Ocean and consists of a vast array of space and missile tracking and data gathering equipment. Up-range instrumentation sites are located on Vandenberg AFB, Pillar Point Air Force Station, Anderson Peak, and Santa Ynez Peak. Midrange instrumentation is located on the Hawaiian Islands. Western Range instrumentation is supplemented by Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center in CA, the USAKA/RTS, and US Air Force Maui Optical Site in Hawaii.

11


12

Purisima Point

Point Sal

VANDENBERG

AIR FORCE

Pac

ific

Oce

an

BASE IPF (Building 375)

PPF (Building 1032)

Rail Transfer (Facility 1886)

IRF (Building 1900)

Remote Launch Control Center (Building 8510)

Point Arguello SLC-8

Range of Launch Azimuths

Figure 2-3. Facilities Proposed to Support the HTV-2 at Vandenberg AFB, CA


SSI currently operates the spaceport facility under a launch site operator license that was renewed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)/Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) in September 2006. A launch site operator license remains in effect for 5 years from the date of issuance, unless surrendered, suspended, or revoked before the expiration of the term, and is renewable upon application by the licensee (14 CFR 420.43). A license to operate a launch site authorizes a licensee to offer its launch site to a launch operator (such as the DARPA and USAF) for each launch point for the type and weight class of vehicle identified in the license application and upon which the licensing determination is based. The launch site operator license authorizes SSI to conduct Government and licensed launches of orbital expendable vehicles within the small payload weight class (less than or equal to 3,300 lb [1,497 kg]). 2.1.2.1.1 Site Modifications For the SLC-8 launch site, no facility modifications are planned for the two HTV-2 missions. Minor modifications to the IRF would include installation of lightning protection, adding fall protection to the roof, and changing the ordnance grounding points. No other buildings or facilities at Vandenberg AFB would require modifications or construction to support the HTV-2 missions. 2.1.2.1.2 Rocket Motor Transportation For each HTV-2 mission, the three rocket motor stages (SR-118, SR-119, and SR-120) would be removed from storage, and inspected and tested for flight worthiness at Hill AFB, Utah, prior to shipment to Vandenberg AFB. Each stage would be individually shipped to Vandenberg AFB from Hill AFB by truck and/or rail using specialized equipment to handle the heavy motors. The 1st-stage SR-118 motor, which weighs in excess of 100,000 lb (45,360 kg), would be shipped to the base by rail (whenever possible) and offloaded at the IRF (Building 1900) using overhead cranes, or offloaded at the Rail Transfer Facility (Facility 1886) using mobile cranes. For over-the-road transportation, a multi-axle, heavy haul commercial trailer would be used. This type of semi-trailer has several steerable axles and a suspension system that provides road shock isolation and leveling capability. A Type II semi-trailer and tractor with eight axles could be used for the smaller and lighter-weight 2nd- and 3rd-stage motors (SR-119 and SR-120, respectively). All transportation, handling, and storage of the rocket motors and other ordnance would occur in accordance with DOD, USAF, and US DOT policies and regulations to safeguard the materials from fire or other mishap. This process would include obtaining oversize/overweight-hauling permits, as necessary, from each state through which transportation would occur. The USAF transports rocket motors from Hill AFB to Vandenberg AFB several times a year as a routine operation. The US Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command would be responsible for all Minotaur IV rocket motor transfer operations. To support implementation of Minotaur IV and other Peacekeeper-derived missions, the USAF prepared a detailed transportation plan for moving Peacekeeper rocket motors to Vandenberg AFB (Northrop Grumman, 2005). This plan addresses the shipping and handling of the motors, as well as applicable regulatory requirements. 2.1.2.1.3 Pre-Launch Preparations Once the rocket motors arrive at Vandenberg AFB, personnel would inspect them before taking them to either an existing bunker for temporary storage or to the IRF (Building 1900) to initiate booster integration and systems testing. During motor/booster processing, contractors would add a destruct

13


package with small quantities of ordnance. The purpose of the destruct package is to terminate motor thrust if unsafe conditions develop during powered flight. The HTV-2 test vehicle would arrive at Vandenberg AFB via truck or aircraft and be transported to the Astrotech PPF (Building 1032). At the Astrotech PPF, contractors would conduct final vehicle assembly and various system/subsystem tests. These actions would include attaching the vehicle to the PAM and encapsulating it in the Payload Fairing to form the Payload Assembly. Following booster processing and integration tests, the motors would be transported individually to SLC-8, where a mobile crane would stack them on the launch stand one at a time. The Payload Assembly containing the HTV-2 test vehicle would be transported separately to the launch site and installed on the completed booster stack last. Prior to transporting the Payload Assembly, personnel would conduct a route survey from the Astrotech PPF to SLC-8 to ensure road surfaces and overhead wire clearances are adequate. At SLC-8, the mobile access tower would provide worker access to each stage of the launch vehicle. In addition to the propellants, ordnance, and batteries used in the flight test vehicle, processing and integration activities for the booster and HTV-2 would require the use of small quantities of lubricants, paints, sealants, and solvents (less than 10 lb [4.5 kg] per flight test vehicle). All use of hazardous materials would comply with applicable Vandenberg AFB hazardous materials management requirements. Electrical power for operations would come from existing commercial power. A portable diesel generator would be available at SLC-8 for emergency power only. The generator would be provided by the launch contractor and permitted by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) or registered under the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Portable Equipment Registration Program. 2.1.2.1.4 Launch Activities On the day of launch, final vehicle closeout and appropriate arming operations are performed. At SLC-8, the mobile access tower is retracted in preparation for countdown and launch. Both missions would be launched on a predetermined azimuth ranging from 260 to 300 degrees (see Figure 2-3). Launch operations would be conducted from either the SLC-8 Launch Control Room, which is located on the hardened side of the SSI IPF, or from Building 8510. Prior to conducting each launch, USAF personnel would conduct a comprehensive safety analysis to determine specific launch and flight hazards. A standard dispersion computer model, run by installation safety personnel, would be used for both normal and aborted launch scenarios. As part of this analysis, risks to off-base areas and non-participating aircraft, sea vessels, and personnel are determined. The results of this analysis are then used to identify the launch hazard area, expended booster drop zones, and a terminal hazard area for shroud components. A flight termination boundary along the vehicle flight path is also predetermined in case a launch vehicle malfunction or flight termination action occurs. The flight termination boundary defines the limits at which command flight termination would be initiated to contain the vehicle and its debris within predetermined hazard and warning areas, thus minimizing the risk to test support personnel and the public. As a normal procedure, commercial and private aircraft, and watercraft, are notified of all the hazard areas several days prior to launch through a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and Notice to Mariners (NOTMAR). Within a day prior to each launch, radar and other remote sensors are used to verify that the hazard areas are clear of non-mission-essential aircraft, vessels, and personnel. Recreational areas in the

14


15

vicinity of the base may be closed for some launches—typically for less than a day—depending on the launch trajectory. Commercial train movements through the base are also coordinated and monitored. The USAF also notifies oilrig companies of an upcoming launch event several days in advance. The notification requests that oilrigs temporarily suspend operations and evacuate or shelter their personnel if rigs are located in the path of the launch vehicle overflight. If a launch vehicle heads off course or should other problems occur during flight, then the Missile Flight Control Officer would activate the destruct package on the vehicle. The signal to destruct is initiated by receipt of a radio command from the base. The destruct package also contains the logic to detect a premature separation of the booster stages and initiate a thrust termination action on its own. Thrust is terminated by initiation of an explosive charge that splits or vents the motor casing, which releases pressure and significantly reduces propellant combustion. This action would stop the vehicle’s forward thrust, causing the vehicle to fall along a ballistic trajectory into the ocean. Other explosive charges located near the Payload Assembly would disable the HTV-2 vehicle’s ability to fly in case it separated from the booster prematurely. 2.1.2.1.5 Post-Launch Operations The pad area would be checked for safe access after vehicle liftoff from the launch pad. Post-launch activities would include inspection of the launch pad facilities, launch platform, and equipment for damage, as well as general cleanup and performance of maintenance and repairs necessary to accommodate the next launch cycle. The expended rocket motors and other vehicle hardware would not be recovered from the ocean following flight. 2.1.2.2 Flight Scenarios Following motor ignition and liftoff from Vandenberg AFB, the Minotaur IV Lite 1st-stage motor would burn out and separate from the 2nd stage. Further into flight, the 2nd-stage and 3rd-stage motors would also burn out and separate. Splashdown of all three spent motor stages would occur at different points in the open ocean between 100 and 2,000 nmi (185 and 3,704 km) off the CA coast. Figure 2-4 shows representative flight paths and rocket drop zones for both HTV-2 missions launched from Vandenberg AFB towards USAKA/RTS in the Marshall Islands. Jettison of the fairing and HTV-2 vehicle separation would occur outside the atmosphere at an altitude of several hundred thousand feet. Following separation, the HTV-2 vehicle would use autonomous flight control to maneuver and begin the hypersonic glide portion of the test flight between 150,000 and 250,000 ft (45,720 and 76,200 m) in altitude. Flight paths for both Missions A and B would extend well north of the Hawaiian Islands, with only Mission A flying over a portion of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI). Mission B, however, may include overflight of Wake Island located in the mid-Pacific. As each HTV-2 vehicle nears USAKA/RTS (the terminal end of the flight) at an altitude of about 100,000 ft (30,480 m), it would maneuver towards the pre-designated ocean impact area. During HTV-2 flight, if a malfunction occurs, onboard systems would prevent active steering control, causing the vehicle to roll into a ballistic spiral (corkscrew-like flight pattern) towards the ocean and terminate flight. No inhabited land areas would be subject to unacceptable risks of falling debris. Computer-monitored destruct lines, based on no-impact lines, are pre-programmed for the Flight Safety software to avoid any debris falling on inhabited areas, as per Space System Software Safety Engineering protocols and US range operation standards and practices. In accordance with US range operation


16

Figure 2-4. Representative HTV-2 Over-Ocean Flight Paths

Mission B Flight Path

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

Mission A Flight Path

Stage 3 Stage 2

Stage 1

Rocket Motor Drop Zones

Terminal Impact Point

Mission B Flight Path

Stage 2Stage 3 Stage 1

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands


Rocket Motor Drop Zones

Terminal Impact Area


standards, the risk of casualty (probability for serious injury or death) from falling debris for an individual of the general public cannot exceed 1 in 1,000,000 during a single flight test or mission (Range Commanders Council [RCC], 2007). 2.1.2.3 Terminal Phase Preparations and Operations For more than 16 years, the USAKA/RTS has been a target area for hypersonic vehicle impacts from ICBM flight tests launched from Vandenberg AFB. Such impacts have occurred within the Kwajalein Atoll lagoon, in the vicinity of Illeginni Island, and in the BOA near USAKA/RTS. These actions were previously analyzed in the following environmental documents:

Final Environmental Assessment for Minuteman III Modification (USAF, 2004), hereafter referred to as the Minuteman-III EA

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Actions at US Army Kwajalein Atoll (US Army Space and Strategic Defense Command [USASSDC], 1993)

Environmental Assessment for Department of Energy (DOE) Reentry Vehicles, Flight Test

Program, US Army Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands (USAF, 1992). Like many of the ICBM hypersonic vehicle tests, the proposed HTV-2 flight tests would use the BOA near USAKA/RTS for deep-water impacts. Figure 2-5 shows representative flight paths for both Missions A and B, with terminal impact occurring in international waters approximately 40 to 80 nmi (74 to 148 km) north of Roi-Namur Island. 2.1.2.3.1 Pre-Test Preparations and Support The USAKA/RTS has an extensive array of missile tracking radars and sensors located on several of the Kwajalein Atoll islands. For the two HTV-2 flight tests, the range would provide telemetry, tracking, sensing, and other technical and logistical support. In addition to the fixed assets at USAKA/RTS, several mobile assets listed in Table 2-4 might also be used to support the flight tests. Existing personnel based at USAKA/RTS would provide most of the test support at the range and within the BOA, including vessel and sensor operations. Depending on mission requirements, other auxiliary land-based, sea-based, and/or aircraft-based sensors may be involved in tracking the HTV-2 vehicles and collecting data at various locations along the over-ocean flight corridors. These existing systems would be operated in their normal capacity in support of the HTV-2 missions and/or they would monitor the missions as targets of opportunity. As described in Table 2-4, free-floating rafts with onboard optical and/or acoustical sensors and telemetry equipment (see Figure 2-6) may be placed in the vicinity of the BOA impact area, in international waters, within a day of each test. One or two existing LCU vessels based at USAKA—the US Army Double Eagle and/or the US Army Great Bridge (see Figure 2-7)—would be used to deploy all or most of the rafts. Battery-powered sensors and telemetry equipment on the rafts would collect data during the vehicle’s descent until impact. Other sensors mounted on vessels would also collect data. Sensors on the US Army Vessel (USAV) Worthy (Figure 2-8) may be used to track and collect telemetry data from the end of the HTV-2 glide through to impact. Other tracking sensors may be mounted on one of the LCUs or another large vessel. Within hours of each test, the vessels would be positioned in the vicinity of the BOA to track and record the HTV-2 final flight and descent.

17


Figure 2-5. Representative HTV-2 Flight Paths near USAKA/RTS in the Marshall Islands

18


Table 2-4. Potential Mobile Assets to be used near USAKA/RTS in the Marshall Islands

Test Asset Description Support to HTV-2

Vessels

US Army Double Eagle Landing Craft Utility (LCU) used for intra-atoll and BOA support, based at USAKA, 117 ft (35.7 m) long and 390 short tons (354 metric tons).

Used to deploy free-floating sensors in the BOA and potentially provide sea-based sensor support.

US Army Great Bridge LCU used for intra-atoll and BOA support, based at USAKA, 174 ft (53.0 m) long and 1,102 short tons (1,000 metric tons) loaded.

Used to deploy free-floating sensors in the BOA and potentially provide sea-based sensor support.

USAV Worthy T-AGOS class ship commissioned to serve as a mobile instrumentation platform, based at USAKA/RTS, 224 ft (68.3 m) long and 1,565 short tons (1,419 metric tons).

While positioned in the vicinity of the BOA impact area, onboard sensors would track the HTV-2 in flight and collect telemetry and other data.

Other surface ship or large vessel

Similar in size and class to the US Army Great Bridge or USAV Worthy.

While positioned in the vicinity of the BOA impact area, onboard sensors would track the HTV-2 in flight and collect telemetry and other data.

Sea-Based Sensors (free-floating)

Raft Scoring System (RSS)

Up to 16 rafts equipped with onboard sensors. Battery-powered electric motors provide propulsion to maintain position in water.

Deployed from vessels in the BOA. Used for recording terminal flight and determining impact location of the HTV-2.

Other raft systems Up to three rafts equipped with telemetry equipment. Battery-powered electric motors provide propulsion to maintain position in water.

Deployed from vessels in the BOA. Used to collect telemetry data from the HTV-2 during terminal flight.

Land-Based Sensors

S-band Transportable Ground System (STGS) or a similar system

A mobile, land-based telemetry system using a 12 ft (3.7 m) parabolic antenna. Other auxiliary/support equipment includes a small satellite communications terminal with a 6 ft (1.8 m) parabolic antenna, two portable generators, tent/shelter, and an air conditioning unit. All equipment is man-portable.

Deployed onto an island in the vicinity of the glide path from a vessel or from an aircraft. Used to collect and record real-time telemetry data during the HTV-2 flight.

Source: Yakuma, 2008

Figure 2-6. Representative Sensor Raft System

19


Figure 2-7. US Army Landing Craft Utility Vessels

Source: Office of the Chief of Transportation, 2007 (Images are representative of each named vessel.)

US Army Double Eagle US Army Great Bridge

Figure 2-8. US Army Vessel Worthy

Source: Drumheller, 2007 Whales or other marine mammals may occasionally swim within the vicinity of the BOA impact area. If ship personnel observe marine mammals during deployment of free-floating sensors, they would report such sightings to the USAKA Environmental Management Office, the RTS Range Directorate, and the Flight Test Operations Director at Vandenberg AFB for incorporation into the launch prerequisite list for consideration in approving the launch. USAKA/RTS aircraft pilots operating in the vicinity of the impact and test support areas near Roi-Namur Island would also report any opportunistic sightings of marine mammals. HTV-2 test plans might also include use of one STGS or a similar system to be located on Wake Island in support of Mission B (see Figure 2-4). The STGS is a man-portable telemetry system that uses a 12 ft (3.7 m) parabolic antenna (Figure 2-9).

20


Figure 2-9. S-band Transportable

Ground System Antenna To transport the STGS and other auxiliary/support equipment to Wake Island, normally scheduled USAF flights to the island would likely be used. A crew of two or three personnel would temporarily set up and operate the STGS. System setup would require a generally flat location at least 1,000 square ft (93 square m) in area that is paved or has little or no vegetation. This area would include space to set up and operate a small satellite communications terminal, a tent/shelter, and two portable generators. No vegetation clearing, grading, or excavation is planned for system deployment at Wake Island. STGS deployment would be expected to last no more than a week. Wake Island is an unorganized, unincorporated territory of the US administered by the US Department of the Interior. Access to the island is restricted and all current activities on the island are managed by the USAF and a base operations and maintenance contractor (Missile Defense Agency [MDA], 2007b). Proposed deployment and operation of the STGS at Wake Island would occur in a similar manner to that of other portable telemetry and sensor systems previously analyzed for Wake Island and other locations, as described in the following environmental documents:

Wake Island Supplemental Environmental Assessment (MDA, 2007b) Mobile Sensors Environmental Assessment (MDA, 2005) Wake Island Launch Center Supplemental Environmental Assessment (MDA, 1999) Final Environmental Assessment for Rapid Attack Identification, Detection, and Reporting

System—Block 10 (USAF, 2007b). Because the use of similar sensor systems at Wake Island identified no significant impacts to the human or natural environments, the proposed deployment and operation of the STGS at Wake Island is not analyzed further in this EA.

21


2.1.2.3.2 Terminal Flight and Impact Activities To ensure the safe conduct of these types of flight tests, the USAKA/RTS would implement standard range safety procedures. Just as at Vandenberg AFB, NOTAMs and NOTMARs would be published and circulated in accordance with established procedures to warn personnel and inhabitants of the RMI of potential hazard areas they should avoid. Radar sweeps of the hazard areas would be conducted immediately prior to the flight tests to ensure that non-mission ships and aircraft are clear. Personnel on the HTV-2 mission-support vessels would also conduct visual surveys to help confirm that the test area is clear. 2.1.2.3.3 Post-Test Operations The HTV-2 vehicles are expected to breakup on impact in the BOA. Because debris resulting from impact would consist primarily of metal components, little or no floating debris is expected. Vehicle components would sink thousands of feet to the ocean floor. Following impact, post-test operations would include the recovery of all free-floating raft sensors using the LCUs or other vessels. If during recovery operations, HTV-2 debris was found floating in the water, then it would be collected for proper disposal in accordance with USAKA/RTS policies and procedures. If ship personnel were to identify any injured or dead marine mammals or sea turtles during recovery operations, then the personnel would report the information to the USAKA Environmental Management Office, which would then inform the NMFS in Honolulu. USAKA/RTS aircraft pilots operating in the vicinity of the impact and test support areas near Roi-Namur Island would also report any opportunistic sightings of dead or injured mammals. Following all recovery operations, the LCUs and the USAV Worthy would return to their homeport at USAKA/RTS. 2.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the two HTV-2 flight tests proposed to occur at Vandenberg AFB and at USAKA/RTS would not be conducted. By not implementing the Proposed Action, the DARPA and the USAF would not be able to achieve the goal of demonstrating hypersonic technologies for future capabilities in support of our nation’s defense. Laboratory testing of subsystems and hardware may continue; however, HTV system development would be slowed or postponed. 2.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION Although computer simulations, modeling, and other laboratory tests are typically used during the design and early evaluation of flight test vehicles, such methods cannot provide all of the information needed to satisfy mission requirements (e.g., verify system operation and performance). Alternatives that relied solely on such methods would not satisfy the purpose and need and, thus, were eliminated from further consideration. The two HTV-2 flight tests would require a combination of launch and impact sites that could provide the flight distance, facilities, and instrumentation needed to meet HTV-2 mission objectives. Because of its wide array of sensors and applicable ICBM test program experience, the USAKA/RTS was the only range considered for conducting the HTV-2 impacts. The DARPA and the USAF had first considered using Illeginni Island at USAKA/RTS for land impacts, similar to the hypersonic vehicle impacts conducted as part of the ongoing ICBM flight tests (USAF, 1992, 2004). USAF range safety personnel later determined, however, that such tests were deemed unreasonable because the proposed HTV-2 flight tests

22


23

could not fully satisfy all of the standard range safety requirements. Thus, the HTV-2 impacts could only occur within the BOA near USAKA/RTS. For temporary deployment of the STGS or a similar land-based telemetry system, the DARPA and the USAF considered other island/atoll locations in the Marshall Islands including Rongelap, Taka, Taongi, and Utirik Atolls (see Figure 2-5). The DARPA, however, decided to drop all of these locations from further considerations because of limited transportation access at the atolls and the presence of sensitive biological resources (e.g., migratory birds and sea turtle nesting sites) at most of the locations. The flight test missions would satisfy telemetry requirements by using Wake Island for land-based telemetry and other mobile telemetry assets. As for the Minotaur IV Lite launch site, the DARPA and the USAF considered Vandenberg AFB; Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska; and the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii. The Kodiak Launch Complex and Pacific Missile Range Facility, however, did not provide a long enough flight distance to fully meet mission objectives. As a result, Vandenberg AFB was selected as the launch site. For conducting the Minotaur IV Lite launches from Vandenberg AFB, the DARPA and the USAF considered other alternative launch pads in addition to SLC-8. The other launch pads, however, would have required excessive construction and renovations at a higher cost and with potential for greater environmental effects (e.g., Test Pad 01, Advanced Ballistic Reentry System [ABRES] A, and ABRES B). Use of SLC-8 for Minotaur IV Lite launches was previously analyzed in the OSP EA, which identified no significant environmental effects from such launches. 2.4 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Table 2-5 presents a comparison of the potential environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative for those locations and resources affected. Only those resource areas potentially affected are addressed (see Chapter 3.0 for a rationale of resources analyzed). A detailed discussion of the potential effects is presented in Chapter 4.0 of this EA. 2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED ACTION The DARPA and the USAF Preferred Action is to implement the Proposed Action at Vandenberg AFB and at USAKA/RTS, as described in Section 2.1 of this EA.


Table 2-5. Comparison of Potential Environmental Consequences

Locations and Resources Affected

Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA

Air Quality The HTV-2 program launches represent short-term, discrete events. In boost flight, the rocket emissions from each stage would be rapidly dispersed over a large geographic area and by prevailing winds. The total direct and indirect emissions associated with the Proposed Action at Vandenberg AFB were estimated to include release of 0.31 tons (0.28 metric tons) of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 12.3 tons (11.2 metric tons) of total particulate matter. Emission levels would not exceed de minimis (minimal importance) thresholds, be regionally significant, or contribute to a violation of Vandenberg AFB’s air operating permits. No exceedance of air quality standards or health-based standards for non-criteria pollutants would be anticipated.

The proposed HTV-2 program activities would not be implemented; therefore, project related impacts to air quality would not occur. Conditions are not expected to change from that described for the Affected Environment in Section 3.1.1 of the EA.

Noise Noise from site modifications and pre-launch preparations would be short-term and local. Although HTV-2 program launches would generate noise levels well above 100 decibels (dB) A-weighted Sound Exposure Level (ASEL) near the launch site, noise levels within the City of Lompoc and in other communities off base would be well below 85 dB. Launch noise would be infrequent (only two launches are planned), very short in duration (about 20 seconds of intense sound per launch), and have little effect on the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) for these areas. Because flight trajectories would be in a westerly direction, sonic booms would not be audible on any coastal areas, including the northern Channel Islands.

The proposed HTV-2 program activities would not be implemented; therefore, project related impacts to the noise environment would not occur. Conditions are not expected to change from that described for the Affected Environment in Section 3.1.2 of the EA.

Biological Resources Rocket launch emissions and ground-level heat from the rocket plume are expected to have minimal effects on nearby vegetation, wildlife, and surface water habitats. Exposure to short-term noise from launches and helicopter overflights (if conducted) could cause startle effects in protected bird species, pinnipeds, and other wildlife. However, on the basis of prior monitoring studies conducted on base, biologists have determined that rocket launch activities have negligible, short-term impacts on marine mammals, most sea and shore birds, and other protected species. Programmatic take permit limits for pinnipeds would not be exceeded, and both acoustic and biological monitoring would be conducted, as necessary.

The proposed HTV-2 program activities would not be implemented; therefore, project related impacts to biological resources would not occur. Conditions are not expected to change from that described for the Affected Environment in Section 3.1.3 of the EA.

Cultural Resources For the HTV-2 program, there are no plans for excavations or other ground disturbance that could affect archaeological sites. Two facilities proposed for HTV-2 program use are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) because of their Cold War historic context. Modifications are proposed for only one of the buildings (Building 1900); however, the modifications are considered routine upgrades that are allowable under an existing Programmatic Agreement between Vandenberg AFB and the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). In addition, the building has been documented to Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards as partial mitigation for impacts related to another launch program (beddown of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense [GMD] system). The existing HAER, and reuse of the building for HTV-2 activities that are similar to its original Peacekeeper mission, would further mitigate any impacts from the proposed modifications. No impacts to archaeological sites or historic structures are expected from nominal flight activities.

The proposed HTV-2 program activities would not be implemented; therefore, project related impacts to cultural resources would not occur. Conditions are not expected to change from that described for the Affected Environment in Section 3.1.4 of the EA.

24





Health and Safety The launch vehicle integration and flight tests represent routine types of activities at Vandenberg AFB. Allowable public risk limits for launch-related debris would be extremely low; individuals within the general public would not be exposed to a probability of casualty greater than 1 in 1,000,000 for a single mission. Accident rates for ongoing operations involving solid rocket motor transportation over public roads are historically very low (e.g., 0.000002 accidents per mile [mi] driven). By adhering to established and proven safety standards and procedures, the level of risk to all personnel would be minimal.

The proposed HTV-2 program activities would not be implemented; therefore, project related impacts to health and safety would not occur. Conditions are not expected to change from that described for the Affected Environment in Section 3.1.5 of the EA.

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management

Mission support personnel would manage all hazardous materials in accordance with well-established policies and procedures. Hazardous and non-hazardous wastes would be properly disposed of in accordance with applicable Federal, state, local, DOD, and USAF regulations. Hazardous material and waste-handling requirements would not exceed current capacities and management programs would not have to change.

The proposed HTV-2 program activities would not be implemented; therefore, project related impacts on hazardous materials and waste management would not occur. Conditions are not expected to change from that described for the Affected Environment in Section 3.1.6 of the EA.

Over-Ocean Flight Corridor and the Global Environment

Global Atmosphere The two HTV-2 flight tests would release approximately 33 tons (30 metric tons) of hydrogen chloride (HCl) and 0.27 tons (24 metric tons) of free chlorine (Cl) into the atmosphere. However, solid rocket motors make a relatively small contribution to global ozone losses compared to other sources. It is estimated that the emission loads of chlorine (as HCl and Cl) from rocket launches worldwide, as projected from 2004 to 2014, would account for only 0.5 percent of the industrial Cl load from the US over the 10-year period. The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all combined HTV-2 activities at Vandenberg AFB and from both launches would release approximately 304 tons (276 metric tons) of carbon dioxide (CO2). This amount of CO2 represents less than 0.0001 percent of the anthropogenic emissions for this gas released on a global scale annually. As a result, the HTV-2 flight tests would not contribute significantly to ozone layer depletion or to global warming.

The proposed HTV-2 program activities would not be implemented; therefore, project related impacts on the stratospheric ozone layer and on global warming would not occur. Conditions are not expected to change from that described for the Affected Environment in Section 3.2.1 of the EA.

Biological Resources The underwater propagation of sonic booms produced by the Minotaur IV Lite booster during launch is not expected to exceed 7.2 psf (a conservative estimate based on the Atlas V booster), which is equivalent to 171 dB (referenced to 1 microPascal [re 1 µPa]) in water. Following HTV-2 separation from the booster, as the test vehicle begins to hypersonic glide towards USAKA/RTS, it also would generate a moving sonic boom or carpet boom with a maximum peak overpressure of 0.21 psf (equivalent to 140 dB [re 1 µPa] in water). The HTV-2 vehicle carpet booms over the NWHI and Wake Island also would be minimal in strength (about 111 dB [re 20 µPa] in air and 137 dB [ref to 1 µPa] underwater), resulting in minimal impacts to migratory birds, seals, and other species at these island locations. Following launch of the Minotaur IV Lite booster, spent rocket motors could strike marine life in the open ocean, and the resulting underwater shock/sound wave could cause auditory effects, other injuries, or death to protected marine mammals and sea turtles. Because of the limited ocean areas

The proposed HTV-2 program activities would not be implemented; therefore, project related impacts on biological resources would not occur. Conditions are not expected to change from that described for the Affected Environment in Section 3.2.2 of the EA.

25


26




affected and the low density of protected species, the potential risk to animals is negligible. Seawater would rapidly dilute hazardous materials released from the spent motors, and components would immediately sink to the ocean bottom, out of reach of marine mammals, sea turtles, and most other marine life.

US Army Kwajalein Atoll/Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site and the Marshall Islands

Noise The resulting HTV-2 sonic booms (carpet booms) over Rongelap and Utirik Atolls would affect the local RMI communities, but only once within each community. The carpet boom overpressures are expected to be around 0.12 psf (109 dB [re 20 µPa] in air), less than the 120 dB produced by a thunderclap at close range and well within the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard of 140 dB (peak sound pressure level) for impulse noise. The focused sonic boom over the BOA, just before HTV-2 vehicle impact, would only occur twice (once for each flight test) and would not affect any RMI communities or other land areas.

The proposed HTV-2 program activities would not be implemented; therefore, project related impacts on noise would not occur. Conditions are not expected to change from that described for the Affected Environment in Section 3.3.1 of the EA.

Biological Resources Deployment of vessels and free-floating sensors in the BOA would have little or no impact on marine mammals and sea turtles. The HTV-2 vehicle carpet booms would occur only once at each location, resulting in a maximum peak overpressure of 0.21 psf (equivalent to 114 dB [re 20 µPa] in air and 140 dB [re 1 µPa] in water). Such noise levels would have minimal impacts on terrestrial and marine species. During terminal flight, the HTV-2 would generate a focused boom in the BOA that would result in higher underwater sound levels ranging from about 129 to 182 dB (re 1 µPa). The HTV-2 ocean impact could also strike marine life in the open ocean, and the resulting underwater shock/sound wave could cause auditory effects, other injuries, or death to protected marine mammals and sea turtles. Because of the limited ocean areas affected and the low density of protected species in the BOA, the potential risk to animals is negligible. The small quantities of hazardous materials onboard the HTV-2 vehicle are not expected to adversely affect marine mammals, sea turtles, and other marine life.

The proposed HTV-2 program activities would not be implemented; therefore, project related impacts on biological resources would not occur. Conditions are not expected to change from that described for the Affected Environment in Section 3.3.2 of the EA.

Health and Safety HTV-2 test preparations at USAKA/RTS would not introduce new types of activities or increase levels of risk to support personnel. The proposed HTV-2 flight tests and impacts in the Marshall Islands would be conducted using the same USAKA/RTS range safety standards as those applied to ongoing ICBM hypersonic vehicle tests and other flight-test programs. Allowable risk limits for the general public would not exceed 1 in 1,000,000 for casualty to an individual from a single mission. Program personnel would follow established safety procedures when deployed in the BOA or to other RMI atolls.

The proposed HTV-2 program activities would not be implemented; therefore, project related impacts on health and safety would not occur. Conditions are not expected to change from that described for the Affected Environment in Section 3.3.3 of the EA.


3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter describes the environmental resources at the installations and other locations identified in the Proposed Action—Vandenberg AFB, the over-ocean flight corridor, and USAKA/RTS and the Marshall Islands. The chapter is organized by installation/location, describing each environmental resource or topical area that could be affected at that site by implementing the Proposed Action. The information and data presented are commensurate with the importance of the potential impacts in order to provide the proper context for evaluating impacts. Sources of data used and cited in the preparation of this chapter include available literature (such as EAs, EISs, and other environmental studies), installation and facility personnel, and regulatory agencies. The rationale for excluding certain environmental resources from further study is described in the introductory section for each installation/location. The information contained in this Chapter serves as the baseline against which the predicted effects of the Proposed Action can be compared. The potential environmental effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative are discussed in Chapter 4.0. 3.1 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE Vandenberg AFB is located in Santa Barbara County on the central coast of CA, about 50 mi (240 km) northwest of the City of Santa Barbara (Figure 3-1). Covering more than 98,000 acres (39,660 hectares), it is the third largest USAF installation. A primary mission for the base is to conduct and support space and missile launches. Located along the Pacific coast, Vandenberg AFB is the only facility in the US from which unmanned Government and commercial satellites can be launched into polar orbit, and where land-based ICBMs can be launched to verify weapon system performance. N

Map not to scale

Figure 3-1. Location of Vandenberg AFB, CA

27


28

Rationale for Environmental Resources Analyzed The proposed HTV-2 activities at Vandenberg AFB could impact air quality, noise, biological resources, cultural resources, health and safety, and hazardous materials and waste management (including pollution prevention), and as such, only these environmental resource topics are discussed. Although not broken out as a separate section, surface water quality is included in the analysis, from the standpoint of potential impacts on vegetation and wildlife, and wastewater generation was addressed under hazardous materials and waste management. Much of the information presented in this section was drawn from the Affected Environment chapter of the OSP EA (USAF, 2006). Pertinent new information was included where applicable to account for changes in the affected environment or the availability of updated data. Some resource topics were not analyzed further at Vandenberg AFB because: (1) the Proposed Action does not require ground-disturbing activities, thus no impacts to soils would be expected; (2) Installation Restoration Program studies have generally not shown any long-term concerns for contamination to groundwater from repeated launches of similar solid-propellant systems (USAF, 2006); (3) there would be little increase in personnel on base, thus no socioeconomic concerns are anticipated; (4) given the launch trajectories of the proposed HTV-2 flight tests, the protection provided by range safety regulations and procedures, and the occurrence of launch noise over a wide area, there would be no disproportionate impacts to minority populations and low-income populations under Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations); (5) launch operations would be conducted in accordance with Western Range operating procedures and would not expand or alter currently controlled airspace; and (6) the proposed launches represent activities that are consistent with the Vandenberg Air Force Base General Plan (VAFB, 2007c) and well within the limits of current base operations. The California Coastal Commission (CCC) also found launch operations at the SSI Commercial Spaceport to be consistent with the California Coastal Management Program (CCC, 1994; USAF, 1995). As a result, there would be no adverse effects on land use, utilities, or transportation. 3.1.1 AIR QUALITY The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the CARB, and the SBCAPCD, regulate air quality in Santa Barbara County and at Vandenberg AFB. The Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401-7671), as amended, gives USEPA the responsibility to establish the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR Part 50) that set acceptable concentration levels for seven criteria pollutants: particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), and lead (Pb). In addition, the State of California instituted the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which includes additional standards for the Federally identified criteria pollutants, as well as sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride (chloroethene), and visibility reducing particles. Short-term standards (1-, 8-, and 24-hour periods) were established for pollutants that contribute to acute health effects, while long-term standards were established for pollutants that contribute to chronic health effects. The CARB monitors levels of criteria pollutants at representative sites throughout CA. Table 3-1 outlines the NAAQS, CAAQS, and ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants as measured by monitoring stations at Vandenberg AFB and in nearby Santa Maria. These concentrations are conservative estimates of the air-quality conditions at Vandenberg AFB. Air-Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) that exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS are designated nonattainment areas and those in accordance with the standards are attainment areas. Vandenberg AFB is in the South Central Coast Intrastate AQCR (AQCR 032) (40 CFR 81.166). Both the USEPA and CARB designated Santa Barbara County as being in attainment of all Federal and state standards except for the


Table 3-1. Air Quality Standards and Ambient Air Concentrations at or near Vandenberg AFB, CA

2004 2005 2006 Federal Standards2 Pollutant South

VAFB Santa Maria

South VAFB

Santa Maria

South VAFB

Santa Maria

California Standards1 Primary3 Secondary4

Ozone (parts per million [ppm]) 1-hour highest5

1-hour 2nd highest 8-hour highest6

8-hour 2nd highest

0.09 0.089 0.083 0.079

0.074 0.064 0.064 0.059

0.072 0.067 0.066 0.061

0.063 0.062 0.061 0.050

0.070 0.063 0.063 0.060

0.064 0.063 0.062 0.058

0.09

- 0.070

-

- -

0.075 -

- -

Same as Primary Standard -

CO (ppm) 1-hour highest 1-hour 2nd highest 8-hour highest 8-hour 2nd highest

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

2.4 1.8 0.9 0.9

0.9 0.9 0.7 0.6

1.7 1.6 0.9 0.8

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

1.5 1.5 0.7 0.7

20 - 9 -

35 - 9 -

- - - -

NO2 (ppm) 1-hour highest 1-hour 2nd highest Annual Arithmetic Mean

0.023 0.023 0.001

0.05 0.045 0.010

0.019 0.019 0.010

0.048 0.045 0.001

0.016 0.016 0.001

0.037 0.035 0.008

0.18

- 0.030

- -

0.053

- -

Same as Primary Standard

SO2 (ppm) 1-hour highest 1-hour 2nd highest 3-hour highest 3-hour 2nd highest 24-hour highest 24-hour 2nd highest Annual Arithmetic Mean

0.009 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001

(no data)

0.004 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001

(no data)

0.007 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001

(no data)

0.25

- - -

0.04 - -

- - - -

0.14 -

0.03

- -

0.50 - - - -

PM10 (micrograms per cubic meter [μg/m3]) 24-hour highest 24-hour 2nd highest Annual Arithmetic Mean

37 37 18

52 46 24

41 37 15

43 38 21

55 43 18

54 49 22

50 -

20

150 - -

Same as Primary Standard - -

29


30

Table 3-1. Air Quality Standards and Ambient Air Concentrations at or near Vandenberg AFB, CA

2004 2005 2006 Federal Standards2 Pollutant South

VAFB Santa Maria

South VAFB

Santa Maria

South VAFB

Santa Maria

California Standards1 Primary3 Secondary4

PM2.5 (μg/m3) 24-hour highest 24-hour 2nd highest Annual Arithmetic Mean

(no data)

17 13 7.6

(no data)

30 18 8

(no data)

14 13 7.5

- -

12

65 (35)7

- 15

Same as Primary Standard

- Same as Primary Standard

Notes: 1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter are not to be exceeded values. 2 National averages (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year, with a maximum hourly average concentration above the standard, is equal to or less than one. 3 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. 4 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects from a pollutant. 5 Not to be exceeded on more than an average of 1 day per year over a 3-year period. 6 Not to be exceeded by the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average. 7 Although not fully implemented, the USEPA has reduced the PM2.5 NAAQS from 65 to 35 μg/m3.

Sources: 17 California Code of Regulations (CCR) 70200; 40 CFR Part 50; 73 FR 16436-16514; USEPA, 2007a.


8-hour O3 CAAQS and the PM10 CAAQS (40 CFR 81.305; SBCAPCD, 2009a). For PM10, the nonattainment is reflected in the locally recorded values shown in Table 3-1. Although the monitoring stations in the vicinity of Vandenberg AFB do not reflect an exceedance for O3 CAAQS, other monitoring stations within the county have recorded higher levels; hence the nonattainment status for O3 CAAQS. Because air quality is measured and regulated on a regional level, and O3 forms in the atmosphere some distance from the location of their precursors’ emission, the region of influence (ROI) for the air quality analysis is AQCR 032, Santa Barbara County, and the immediate offshore area. SBCAPCD maintains a comprehensive inventory of air pollutants released within the county. This inventory accounts for types and amounts of pollutants emitted from a wide variety of sources, including on-road motor vehicles, fuel combustion at industrial facilities, solvent and surface coating usage, consumer product usage, and emissions from natural sources. The emission inventory is used to describe and compare contributions from air pollution sources, evaluate control measures, schedule rule adoptions, forecast future pollution, and prepare clean air plans. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 provide the latest available information on the overall emissions for Santa Barbara County. Emission levels of NOx and VOC are of particular importance because of their contribution to ground level ozone and smog.

Table 3-2. 2001 Area and Point Source Emissions for Santa Barbara County, CA (Tons per Year)

Source CO NOx PM10 PM 2.5 SO2 VOC

Area Sources 130,199 13,356 16,500 5,249 280 23,919

Point Sources 1,548 1,564 554 289 1,021 835

Total 131,747 14,920 17,054 5,538 1,301 24,754 Source: USEPA, 2007a.

Table 3-3. 2002 Ozone Precursor Emissions for Santa Barbara County, CA (Tons per Year)

NOx VOC

16,111 43,140

Source: SBCAPCD, 2007.

Stationary sources of air emissions on Vandenberg AFB (including both point and area sources) include abrasive blasting operations, boilers, generators, surface coating operations, turbine engines, wastewater treatment plants, storage tanks, aircraft operations, soil remediation, launch vehicle fueling operations, large aircraft starting systems, and solvent usage. On-base mobile sources of air emissions include various aircraft, missile and spacecraft launches, and numerous Government and personal motor vehicles (VAFB, 2005). Table 3-4 provides information on the overall emissions for Vandenberg AFB in 2006. Notably, the base emissions constitute less than 0.5 percent of the total countywide emissions of all criteria pollutants. At Vandenberg AFB, wind and other meteorological conditions are critical for the dispersion of emissions. The mean annual wind speed in the area is 7 miles per hour (mph) (11.3 kilometers per hour [kph]) out of the northwest. The strongest winds occur during the winter and midday, and at ridgelines.

31


Table 3-4. 2006 Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions for Vandenberg AFB, CA (Tons per Year)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

1,076.0 216.4 11.8 4.1 2.93 140.1

Source: CARB, 2009a; VAFB, 2007b.

Over half of the time, the wind blows at speeds greater than 7 mph (11.3 kph). The entire south-central coastal region experiences a persistent subsidence inversion resulting from a Pacific high-pressure region. The average maximum daily inversion height ranges from 1,600 ft (488 m) during the summer to 2,800 ft (853 m) during the winter. (USAF, 1998) 3.1.2 NOISE Noise is most often defined as unwanted sound that is heard by people or wildlife and that interferes with normal activities or otherwise diminishes the quality of the environment. Sources of noise may be transient (e.g., a passing train or aircraft), continuous (e.g., heavy traffic or air conditioning equipment), or impulsive (e.g., a sonic boom or a pile driver). Sound waves traveling outward from a source exert a sound pressure measured in dB. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound wave frequencies. Sound levels adjusted for frequency-dependent amplitude are called “weighted” sound levels. Weighted measurements emphasizing frequencies within human sensitivity are called A-weighted decibels (dBA). Established by the American National Standards Institute, A-weighting significantly reduces the measured pressure level for low-frequency sounds, while slightly increasing the measured pressure level for some high-frequency sounds. In summary, A-weighting is a filter used to relate sound frequencies to human-hearing thresholds. Typical A-weighted sound levels measured for various sources are provided in Figure 3-2. The greatest sound pressure level recorded during a specific period of time is termed the peak sound pressure level, further qualified as weighted or unweighted (i.e., unfiltered). Peak sound values can be too short and at a frequency missed by the human ear. Sound Exposure Level (SEL), however, is a composite cumulative energy metric of a sound’s amplitude and duration, and is qualified as weighted or unweighted. If the SEL is A-weighted, then it is referred to as ASEL, which is one of the most common metrics used for determining noise exposure effects on humans. USAF standards require hearing protection whenever a person is exposed to steady-state noise of 85 dBA or more, or impulse noise of 140 dB sound pressure level or more, regardless of duration. Personal noise protection is required when using noise-hazardous machinery or entering hazardous noise areas. Air Force Occupational Safety and Health (AFOSH) Standard 48-20 (Occupational Noise and Hearing Conservation Program) describes the USAF Hearing Conservation Program procedures used at Vandenberg AFB. Similarly, under 29 CFR 1910.95, employers are required to monitor employees whose exposure to noise could equal or exceed an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 dBA. For off-base areas, Vandenberg AFB follows state regulations concerning noise, and maintains a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 65 dBA or lower. CNELs represent day-night noise levels averaged over a 24-hour period, with “penalty” decibels added to quieter time periods (i.e., evening and nighttime). As a result, the CNEL is generally unaffected by the short and infrequent rocket launches occurring locally on base.

32


33

dBA

145

140

135

130

125

120

115

110

105

100

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5 0

Sonic Boom EPA/USAF Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory - “No Serious Health Problems”

Jet Takeoff (Near Runway) Rock Music Band (Near Stage) Pile Driver at 50 feet Freight Train at 50 feet; Ambulance Siren at 100 feet Inside Boiler Room or Printing press plant

Garbage Disposal in Home at 3 feet Inside Sports Car at 50 mph

Freight Train at 100 feet Considered Acceptable for Residential Land Use; Average Urban Area

Inside Department Store

Typical Day Time Suburban Background Typical Bird Calls; Normal Levels Inside Home

Typical Library

Quiet Rural Area

Inside Recording Studio Leaves Rustling

Physically Painful

Extremely Loud

Threshold of

Physical Discomfort

Hearing Damage Criteria For 8-Hour Workday

Most Residents Highly

Acceptability Limit for Residential Development

Goal for Urban Areas

No Community Annoyance

Threshold of Hearing

PUBLIC RESPONSE FAMILIAR NOISE SOURCES

Annoyed

Source: Modified from USASDC, 1991.

Figure 3-2. Typical Noise Levels of Familiar Noise Sources and Public Responses


For noise analysis purposes in this EA, the ROI at Vandenberg AFB is defined as the area within the 85-dB ASEL contour generated by the proposed HTV-2 launches (see Figure 4-1). This ROI equates to an area within a few miles of the launch site. Typical noise sources at Vandenberg AFB are automobile and truck traffic, aircraft operations (including landings, takeoffs, and training approaches and departures for both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft), and trains passing through the base (an average of 10 trains per day) (VAFB, 2005). Existing noise levels on base are generally low, with higher levels occurring near industrial facilities and transportation routes. The immediate area surrounding Vandenberg AFB is largely composed of undeveloped and rural land, with some unincorporated residential areas in the Lompoc and Santa Maria valleys, and Northern Santa Barbara County. A small number of industrial areas and small airports are located within the Cities of Lompoc and Santa Maria (Figure 3-1), which are the two main urban areas in the region. Sound levels measured for these areas are typically low, but higher levels occur in the industrial areas and along transportation corridors. The rural areas of the Lompoc and Santa Maria valleys typically have low overall CNELs, normally about 40 to 45 dBA (USAF, 1998). Occasional aircraft flyovers can increase noise levels for a short period of time. Other less frequent, but more intense, sources of noise in the region are from missile and space launches at Vandenberg AFB. These include Minotaur, Atlas V, and Delta IV launches from the South Base area, as well as Minuteman, Ground-based Midcourse Defense, Taurus, and Delta II launches from the North Base area. Depending on the launch vehicle and launch location on the base, resulting noise levels in Lompoc may reach an estimated maximum unweighted sound pressure level of 100 dB, and Santa Maria may reach 95 dB, each for an effective duration of about 20 seconds per launch. Equivalent A-weighted sound levels would be lower. Because launches from Vandenberg AFB occur infrequently, and the launch noise generated from each event is of very short duration, the average (CNEL) noise levels in the nearby areas are not affected. (USAF, 1998, 2000, 2006) Although rocket launches from Vandenberg AFB often produce sonic booms during the vehicle’s ascent, the resulting overpressures are directed out over the ocean in the direction of the launch azimuth and generally do not affect the CA coastline. Depending on the launch azimuth, some launches from South Vandenberg can cause sonic booms to occur over portions of the northern Channel Islands (USAF, 1995, 1998, 2000). 3.1.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES For purposes of analyzing biological resources at Vandenberg AFB, the ROI includes those land areas and near-shore waters near the SSI Commercial Spaceport (SLC-8) and associated launch azimuths (see Figure 2-3). Biological resources within deeper waters and the open ocean are described in Section 3.2.2. 3.1.3.1 Vegetation Vandenberg AFB supports a wide variety of vegetation organized according to habitat types. These include Bishop pine forest, Tanbark oak forest, coastal live oak woodland, riparian woodland, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, purple sage scrub, coastal dune scrub, coastal bluff scrub, coastal strand, grasslands, coastal bluffs, and rocky headlands. Approximately 85 percent of Vandenberg AFB vegetation is natural, with the balance either invasive vegetation that has replaced natural flora (particularly non-native annual grasslands) or plants associated with developments. Most of the vegetation surrounding SLC-8 is maintained to reduce fire hazard. (USAF, 2006; VAFB, 2005)

34


Several plants designated as Species of Concern3 may be found near the SSI Commercial Spaceport and are listed in Appendix B. Habitat types and known locations are also identified. 3.1.3.2 Wildlife The various coastal environments and vegetation types found at Vandenberg AFB provide a wide range of habitats for many resident and migratory animals. While some species are associated with a specific habitat, others may be generalists, occupying multiple habitat communities. Such examples occurring near SLC-8 may include the western fence lizard, garter snake, brush rabbit, mule deer, Townsend’s western big-eared bat, California ground squirrel, and red-tailed hawk (USAF, 2006). A number of birds and other animals found on base are designated Species of Concern. These and other protected species potentially occurring near the Commercial Spaceport are listed in Appendix B, including their habitat type and known locations of occurrence on base. Surveys conducted on base have shown a large number of seabirds—including pigeon guillemots, pelagic cormorants, Brandt’s cormorants, black oystercatchers, and western gulls—to occur around Point Arguello (Figure 3-3) (USAF, 2006). These and other bird species found on base, including most of those listed in Appendix B, are given additional protections under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Source: CDFG, 2009; USAF, 2006.

Figure 3-3. Protected Species and Sensitive Habitat near SLC-8 at Vandenberg AFB, CA

3 Species of Concern status applies to plants and animals not listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (as amended) or the State-level Endangered Species Act, but for which concerns for the future well-being of the taxon exist.

35


Regarding marine mammals, some species of seals and sea lions (pinnipeds) can be found within the ROI using beaches and rocky shores along Vandenberg AFB to rest, molt, and/or breed. Pinnipeds that may be found onshore (“hauled-out”) within the ROI include the California sea lion, Pacific harbor seal, and northern elephant seal (USAF, 2006). None of these species are listed as endangered or threatened, but all receive Federal protection from harassment or injury under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The Pacific harbor seal is the most common marine mammal inhabiting Vandenberg AFB, occurring year-round at several locations along the base coastline, particularly at Rocky Point (Figure 3-3). Pupping occurs from March 1 through June 30. Harbor seals are considered particularly sensitive to disturbance during this period, when the risk of mother-offspring separation is greatest. To assess the potential long-term effects of launch noise on pinnipeds, Vandenberg AFB conducts biological monitoring for all launches during the harbor seal pupping season (March 1 to June 30). (74 FR 6236-6244; USAF, 2006) Fewer than 200 California sea lions are found seasonally on Vandenberg AFB. Sea lions may sporadically haul-out to rest when in the area to forage or when transiting the area, but generally spend little time there. They can be found in the area of Point Pedernales, Point Arguello, and Rocky Point (Figure 3-3). In 2003, at least 142 sea lions and 5 pups were hauled out at Rocky Point. This occurrence was the first report of sea lions being born at Vandenberg, but it may have been a result of the El Nino conditions that existed at that time. (69 FR 5720-5728; USAF, 2006) Approximately 150 northern elephant seals may be found seasonally on Vandenberg AFB. Weaned elephant seal pups making their first foraging trips occasionally haul-out for 1 to 2 days at the base before continuing on their migration. In April 2003, approximately 88 juveniles and young adult females began to haul-out at Rocky Point to molt. (69 FR 5720-5728; USAF, 2006) 3.1.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Those threatened and endangered species found in proximity to the proposed HTV-2 launch site (SLC-8) are listed in Table 3-5. Although not all inclusive, locations of these species are also shown in Figure 3-3. 3.1.3.3.1 Listed Floral Species Vandenberg AFB represents an important habitat for threatened and endangered plant species because human activities and invasive species are controlled on the base. Two listed species are known to occur near SLC-8. The Federally endangered Gaviota tarplant is found at several locations on base, including one area located one mile from SLC-8 (USAF, 2006). Mowed and unmowed non-native grassland and ruderal vegetation represent suitable habitat for Gaviota tarplant. Overall, the USAF permanently removed at least 4.8 acres (1.9 hectares) of Gaviota tarplant on base through mission-critical activities. The USFWS, however, recently concluded that the tarplant population is stable throughout its range (67 FR 67968-68001; USFWS, 2007). The state threatened surf thistle occurs within 0.8 mi (1.3 km) of SLC-8. Suitable habitat for surf thistle is found primarily in the coastal dunes. (USAF, 2006)

36


Table 3-5. Threatened and Endangered Species near SLC-8 at Vandenberg AFB, CA1

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status CA Status

Plants

Gaviota tarplant Dienandra increscens ssp. villosa E E

Surf thistle Cirsium rhothophilum - T

Reptiles/Amphibians

California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii T SOC

Birds

California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis californicus E E, CFP

Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus T SOC

Mammals (includes nearshore waters)

Southern sea otter Enhydra lutris nereis T CFP Notes:

1 The species listed are known to occur or are expected to occur year round or seasonally within approximately 2.0 mi (3.2 km) of SLC-8 and the associated launch azimuths except for the western snowy plover, which occurs within 3.9 mi (6.2 km) of SLC-8 and the launch azimuth. E = Endangered T = Threatened

CFP = California Fully Protected SOC = Species of Concern

Source: USAF, 2006. 3.1.3.3.2 Listed Faunal Species Three Federally listed wildlife species occur within the ROI at Vandenberg AFB. Discussions on each species are provided in the paragraphs that follow. The California red-legged frog prefers freshwater ponds and streams, usually with moderately deep pools, permanent water, and dense aquatic vegetation within and along water edges. Red-legged frogs are common on Vandenberg AFB and are found almost any place where suitable habitat exists. These locations include the wastewater retention ponds located approximately 1,310 ft (400 m) northwest of SLC-8. (USAF, 2006; USFWS, 1999) The endangered California brown pelican roosts mostly along rocky shores along the base coastline, particularly at or near Point Arguello (USAF, 2006). Vandenberg AFB provides important nesting and wintering habitat for western snowy plovers. Plover nesting occurs on the coastal dunes of the base, including the area of Surf Beach along the South Vandenberg coastline (see Figure 3-3). Nesting and chick rearing activity generally occurs between March 1 and September 30 (USAF, 2006). The only listed marine mammal occurring at Vandenberg AFB is the Federally threatened southern sea otter, which can be observed year-round foraging and rafting within a few hundred yards of the shore anywhere kelp beds are present. Resident breeding colonies exist along the South Base coastline from an area east of Rocky Point to the southern base boundary. Up to 60 otters, including pups, have been seen along the southern coastline. (USAF, 2006)

37


Although the Federally endangered El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) is reported to occur at various locations on base, there is no known habitat for the butterfly within 3.0 mi (4.8 km) of the SLC-8 launch site, which is beyond the known dispersal distance for this species (Evans, 2009; MDA, 2008). 3.1.3.4 Environmentally Sensitive Habitats In cooperation with the USFWS and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Vandenberg AFB identified habitats for special protection under its Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) (draft). Although no USFWS-designated critical habitat areas exist on Vandenberg AFB for the Gaviota tarplant or for other protected plant species, the base has made a commitment to develop and implement protective measures to be specified in its updated INRMP. These measures may include monitoring, surveys, habitat enhancement, and restoration areas (67 FR 67968-68001; USAF, 2006). Nesting habitat for western snowy plovers can be found along the beaches and coastal dunes of Vandenberg AFB. To better protect the snowy plovers during the nesting season, Vandenberg AFB and the USFWS have drafted a recovery plan that includes closing areas of Surf Beach (see Figure 3-3) to human access. Beach and dune closures are implemented each nesting season (USAF, 2006). In 1999, the State of California enacted the Marine Life Protection Act. The Act requires the state to implement a Marine Life Protection Program, which includes a network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). MPAs represent discrete geographic marine or estuarine areas set aside primarily to protect or conserve marine life and habitat. In April 2007, the California Fish and Game Commission approved MPAs in the CA Central Coast Region, including the Vandenberg State Marine Reserve (SMR) along the central and south coasts of Vandenberg AFB (see Figure 3-3). Effective September 21, 2007, the take4 of any living marine resource within the SMR is prohibited except for a take incidental to base operations and commercial space launch operations identified as mission critical by the Vandenberg AFB Commander. As part of the Marine Life Protection Program, the CDFG will enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the base Commander for the mutually beneficial management and administration of the Vandenberg SMR. (CDFG, 2009) As amended and reauthorized in 2006, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 104-297) requires regional Marine Fisheries Councils to manage fisheries to ensure stability of fish populations with support from the NMFS. Regional Marine Fisheries Councils prepare Fishery Management Plans that identify and protect the habitat essential to maintain healthy fish populations. Commercially important species are preferentially targeted. Threats to habitat from both fishery and non-fishery activities are identified, and actions needed to eliminate them are recommended. In CA, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) is responsible for identifying essential fish habitat, which is generally defined as the waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. (PFMC, 2009) Fishes of commercial importance found just within and downrange from the ROI include coastal pelagic schooling squids and fishes (Pacific sardine, Pacific mackerel, and northern anchovy), groundfish (rockfish, flatfish, and Pacific whiting), and large, highly migratory pelagic fishes (tuna, swordfish, and sharks). Essential fish habitat identified by the PFMC for these species includes all marine and estuary waters from the coast of CA to the limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends 200 mi (322

4 The California Fish and Game Code Section 1-89.1(86) defines “take” as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” For purposes of the Marine Life Protection Act, Section 1.80 of Title 14 CCR defines “take” as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill fish, amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans or invertebrates or attempting to do so.”

38


km) seaward from the coast. Groundfish are the species of commercial importance found within the shallow waters off Vandenberg AFB. More than 82 species of groundfish are identified in the Fishery Management Plan for this region. (PFMC, 2009) 3.1.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic sites, structures, districts, artifacts, or any other physical evidence of human activity considered important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or any other reason. Cultural resources are limited, nonrenewable resources whose potential for scientific research (or value as a traditional resource) may be easily diminished by actions impacting their integrity. Numerous laws and regulations require that possible effects to cultural resources be considered during the planning and execution of Federal undertakings. These laws and regulations stipulate a process of compliance and consultation, define the responsibilities of the Federal agency proposing the action, and prescribe the relationship among other involved agencies (e.g., SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation). In addition to NEPA, the primary laws that pertain to the treatment of cultural resources during environmental analysis are the National Historic Preservation Act (especially Sections 106 and 110), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Antiquities Act of 1906, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Depending on the integrity and historical significance of a site or property, it may be listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. The term ROI is synonymous with the “area of potential effect” as defined under cultural resources regulations, 36 CFR 800.16(d). In general, the ROI for cultural resources encompasses areas of planned ground disturbance (e.g., areas of new facility/utility construction) and all buildings or structures requiring modification, renovation, demolition, or abandonment. For the HTV-2 program, no soil disturbance is planned to occur on base and only minor modifications would be made to buildings. Thus, the ROI for the HTV-2 Proposed Action consists of those buildings and facilities that are historic as well as adjacent areas where archaeological resources might occur. In cases of launch failures, the ROI would include areas of debris clean-up, firefighting, and other required post launch-anomaly activities. 3.1.4.1 Archaeological Sites Numerous archaeological surveys at Vandenberg AFB have identified more than 2,200 prehistoric and historic cultural sites. Prehistoric sites have included dense shell middens (refuse heaps), stone tools, village sites, stone quarries, and temporary encampments (VAFB, 2005). One of the existing facilities that would be potentially used for activities under the Proposed Action (see Section 2.1.2.1) is located near a known archaeological site (Table 3-6).

Table 3-6. Archaeological Sites in Relation to Proposed HTV-2 Support Facilities at Vandenberg AFB, CA

Facility Site Characteristics NRHP Eligibility Proximity to Facility

Rail Transfer Facility (Facility 1886)

Historic – Scatter of historic artifacts possibly associated with a railroad camp or the sugar beet industry.

Not Determined

The site was discovered during construction monitoring for Facility 1886. The site was on the rail approaches to the facility.

Source: USAF, 2006.

39


3.1.4.2 Historic Buildings and Structures As part of the World War II effort, the US Army acquired much of the current base area in 1941. The area, named Camp Cooke, served as a training area for armored and infantry units. In 1950, the base was re-activated in support of the Korean War. In 1957, the USAF took over the northern 65,000 acres of Camp Cooke and renamed it “Cooke AFB.” It was later renamed Vandenberg AFB in a ceremony held on October 4, 1958. Since the late-1950s, the base has been used primarily to develop several types of intermediate and long-range ballistic missiles, and to launch both military and civilian payloads into space. A multi-year survey completed in 1996 identified more than 70 sites, complexes, and facilities that have been determined eligible for the NRHP as historic Cold War-era sites (USAF, 2006). Table 3-7 lists the Cold War sites that could be affected by the Proposed Action.

Table 3-7. Cold War Sites Potentially Affected by HTV-2 Activities at Vandenberg AFB, CA

Facility NRHP Eligibility Contributing Elements

Integration Refurbishment Facility (Building 1900)

Eligible None

Rail Transfer Facility (Facility 1886)

Eligible None

Source: USAF, 2006. 3.1.4.3 Native American Traditional Resources At the time of sustained European contact in the early 1800s, the Vandenberg AFB area was occupied by inhabitants who spoke one of the major languages of the Chumashan branch of the Hokan language family. Several villages were located in the area that is now North Vandenberg AFB. (USAF, 1998) Today, Chumash-related traditional resources at Vandenberg AFB consist of both Traditional Cultural Properties and “traditional resource areas.” Known Traditional Cultural Properties on base include sacred sites, rock art sites, archaeological sites, and ancestral burial locations. The traditional resource areas on base are those locations that modern-day Native Americans access to collect raw materials (e.g., reeds, plants, minerals, and rock resources) or other items of interest. Preservation of this cultural and natural record is important to the living Chumash because of their respect for ancestors, ancestral lands, and traditional resources, as well as the importance of perpetuating Chumash society and traditional ways. (Carucci, 2007; VAFB, 2005) Although various traditional resources are known on Vandenberg AFB, none of these sites are within the ROI for proposed HTV-2 program activities. 3.1.5 HEALTH AND SAFETY Regarding health and safety at Vandenberg AFB, the ROI is limited to the US transportation network used in shipping rocket motors to the base, existing base facilities supporting the HTV-2 flight tests, off-base areas within launch hazard zones, and areas downrange along the launch vehicle’s flight path. The health and safety ROI includes base personnel, contractors, and the general public.

40


Air Force Policy Directive 91-2 (Safety Programs) establishes the USAF’s key safety policies and also describes success-oriented feedback and performance metrics to measure policy implementation. More specific safety and safety-related DOD requirements, Air Force Instructions (AFIs), and other requirements and procedures pertaining to the handling, maintenance, transportation, and storage of rocket motors, and related ordnance, are listed below: DOD 6055.09-STD (DOD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards) AFI 91-202, Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) Supplement 1 (The US Air Force Mishap

Prevention Program) Air Force Manual 91-201 (Explosives Safety Standards). Interstate highways are the preferred routes for the transportation of rocket components to the launch facility, although some local and state routes may be used. The Minotaur IV Lite 1st-stage motor, however, would most likely be shipped to Vandenberg AFB by rail. The health and safety of travel on US transportation corridors is under the jurisdiction of each State’s Highway Patrol and DOT, and the US DOT. The USAF coordinates with each state DOT whenever the transport of hazardous missile/launch vehicle components is planned. The USAF has an excellent safety record of transporting rocket motors. As an example, for ICBM systems, approximately 500,000 road miles have been driven carrying Minuteman and Peacekeeper missiles and motors between bases and launch facilities in the field. During the height of Minuteman ICBM Program operations (from the early 1960s to 1990), over 11,000 missile movements involving over 12,400 individual rocket motors occurred by air, rail, or road. Since 1962, there have been only four accidents associated with these movements—all of them transport truck rollover scenarios involving Minuteman systems. In each of these cases, however, all USAF property was safely recovered and there was no damage to the environment or to human health. Additionally, there were no traffic incidents during a program in which the USAF transported 150 boosters between 1995 and 1997. No accidents or rollovers occurred during the transport of the larger Peacekeeper systems. At FE Warren AFB, Wyoming, for example, the accident rate for USAF vehicles within the ICBM Wing area (about 0.000002 accidents per mile driven) was shown to be nearly identical to the accident rate for the entire state. (Air Force Times, 2008; USAF, 2004, 2006) Health and safety requirements at Vandenberg AFB include industrial hygiene, which is the joint responsibility of Bio-Environmental Services and the 30 Space Wing (SW) Safety Office. These responsibilities include monitoring worker exposure to workplace chemicals and physical hazards, hearing and respiratory protection, medical monitoring of workers subject to chemical exposures, and oversight of all hazardous or potentially hazardous operations. Ground safety includes both occupational and public safety. Both AFOSH and applicable OSHA regulations and standards are used to implement safety and health requirements for all workers on base, including military personnel and contractors. Final responsibility and authority for the safe conduct of ballistic and space vehicle operations lies with the 30 SW Commander. Establishing and managing the overall safety program is the responsibility of the 30 SW Safety Office, which ensures safety during launch operations at Vandenberg AFB. The AFSPC Manual 91-710 (Range Safety User Requirements) establishes range safety policy, and defines requirements and procedures for ballistic and space vehicle operations at Vandenberg AFB (AFSPC, 2004). Over-ocean launches must comply with DOD Instruction 4540.01 (Use of International Airspace by US Military Aircraft and for Missile/Projectile Firings).

41


Prior to conducting rocket launches, all launch operations are evaluated by the 30 SW Safety Office to ensure that populated areas, critical range assets, and civilian property susceptible to damage are outside predicted impact/debris limits. These actions include a review of flight trajectories and hazard area dimensions, and review and approval of destruct systems. Criteria used to determine launch debris hazard risks are in accordance with the RCC Standard 321-07, Common Risk Criteria Standards for National Test Ranges (RCC, 2007). Atmospheric dispersal modeling is also conducted to ensure emission concentrations from each launch do not exceed certain levels outside controlled areas. In accordance with 30 Space Wing Instruction (SWI) 91-106 (Toxic Hazard Assessments), if hydrogen chloride (HCl) launch emission cloud concentrations of 10 ppm or higher are predicted to cross the base land boundary, then the launch is held until meteorological conditions improve. A NOTMAR and a NOTAM are published and circulated in accordance with 30 SWI 91-104 (Operations Hazard Notice) to warn personnel to avoid potential impact areas within established range Warning Areas off the coast, and in other international waters and airspace. Resources such as radar, ground roving security forces, and/or helicopter support are used prior to operations to ensure evacuation of non-critical personnel. Nearby access roads may be closed, and nearby recreational areas may be evacuated. Jalama Beach County Park, near the southern tip of the base, is closed on average once a year, while Ocean Beach County Park, between North and South Base, is closed on average three times per year under agreement with Santa Barbara County (USAF, 2006). In accordance with 30 SWI 91-105 (Evacuating or Sheltering of Personnel on Offshore Oil Rigs), the USAF notifies oilrig companies of an upcoming launch event approximately 10 to 15 days in advance. The USAF’s notification, provided through the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service, requests that the oilrigs located in the path of the launch vehicle overflight temporarily suspend operations and evacuate or shelter their personnel. The coordination and monitoring of train traffic passing through the base during hazardous operations is conducted in accordance with 30 SWI 91-103 (Train Hold Criteria). An average of 10 trains pass through the base daily on the Southern Pacific line (VAFB, 2005). Vandenberg AFB possesses significant emergency response capabilities that include its own Fire Department, Disaster Control Group, and Security Police Force, in addition to contracted support for handling accidental releases of regulated hypergolic propellants and other hazardous substances. The Vandenberg AFB Fire Department approves and maintains the business plans and hazardous material inventories prescribed by the CA Health and Safety Code. The plans and inventories are developed by the organizations conducting business on the base. Additionally, the base Fire Department conducts on-site facility inspections, as required, to identify potentially-hazardous conditions that could lead to an accidental release. During launch operations, Fire Department response elements are pre-positioned to expedite response in the event of a launch anomaly. (USAF, 2006) 3.1.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE MANAGEMENT For the analysis of hazardous materials and waste management at Vandenberg AFB, the ROI is defined as those HTV-2 support facilities that: (1) handle and transport hazardous materials; (2) collect, store (on a short-term basis), and ship hazardous waste; and (3) are near existing Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites or other contamination.

42


Hazardous materials and waste management activities at USAF installations are governed by specific environmental regulations. For the purposes of the following discussion, the term “hazardous materials or hazardous waste” refers to those substances defined as hazardous by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 USC Section 9601 et seq., as amended. In general, this includes substances that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may present substantial danger to the public health, welfare, or the environment when released. Regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 USC Section 6901 et seq., hazardous waste is further defined in 40 CFR 261.3 as any solid waste that possesses any of the hazardous characteristics of toxicity, ignitability, corrosiveness, or reactivity. AFI 32-7042 (Solid and Hazardous Waste Compliance) and AFI 32-7086 (AFSPC Supplement 1) (Hazardous Materials Management) specify requirements for the development of procedures to manage hazardous materials and waste. In accordance with AFI 32-4002 (Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Program), each USAF installation must also develop a hazardous materials emergency response plan and procedures. These plans and procedures also incorporate appropriate Federal, state, local, and USAF requirements regarding the management of hazardous materials and hazardous waste, including pollution prevention. On Vandenberg AFB, Air Force organizations are required to manage hazardous materials through the base’s HazMart Pharmacy. The HazMart is the single point of control and accountability for the requisitioning, receipt, distribution, issue, and reissue of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials obtained from off base suppliers are also coordinated through Vandenberg AFB’s HazMart Pharmacy. Hazardous materials are inventoried and tracked using Environmental Management System software. These procedures are in accordance with the base Hazardous Materials Management Plan (30 SW Plan 32-7086). The prevention, control, and handling of any spills of hazardous materials are covered under Vandenberg’s Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (30 SW 32-4002-C) and Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan (30 SW Plan 32-4002-A). These plans ensure that adequate and appropriate guidance, policies, and protocols regarding hazardous material spill prevention, spill incidents, and associated emergency response are available to all installation personnel. For hazardous waste, the base Hazardous Waste Management Plan (30 SW Plan 32-7043-A) describes the procedures for packaging, handling, transporting, and disposing of such wastes. If not reused or recycled, hazardous wastes are transported off base for appropriate treatment and disposal. Industrial wastewaters (including rain and wash water collected from launch pad catchments) are monitored and properly disposed of in accordance with the Vandenberg AFB Wastewater Management Plan (30 SW Plan 32-7041-A). All hazardous wastes are managed in accordance with RCRA requirements and with CA Hazardous Waste Control Laws. The transportation of hazardous materials and waste outside the base boundaries is governed by the US DOT regulations within 49 CFR 100-199. As for IRP-related issues, no IRP or other contamination concerns have been identified at SLC-8, the proposed HTV-2 program launch site (Atta, 2008). Older buildings proposed for HTV-2 activities, however, may contain hazardous materials used in their construction, such as asbestos and lead-based paint (LBP). At Vandenberg AFB, LBP and asbestos are managed in accordance with 30 SW Plan 32-1002 (Lead-Based Paint Management Plan), 30 SW Plan 32-1052-A (Asbestos Management Plan), 32-1052-B (Asbestos Operating Plan), and other applicable Federal, state, local, and USAF requirements.

43


3.2 OVER-OCEAN FLIGHT CORRIDOR AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT Because of the potential global effects of launching rockets over the ocean and through the earth’s atmosphere, this EA also considers the environmental effects on the global environment in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12114. This section describes the baseline conditions within the HTV-2 over-ocean flight corridor that may be affected by the Proposed Action. Rationale for Environmental Resources Analyzed Because of the limited scope of the Proposed Action in the over-ocean flight corridor, the global atmosphere and the biological resources within the North Pacific were the only resource areas analyzed. Water quality and noise were also included in the analysis to account for potential impacts on marine life and some terrestrial (island) wildlife. Other environmental resources within the ROI were not evaluated in this EA because: (1) effects would be limited to the over-ocean flight corridor, thus, there is no potential for impacts to cultural resources, land use, soils, and groundwater; and (2) since the ROI is well removed from population centers, no impacts to socioeconomics, utilities, waste management, or transportation are anticipated, nor are environmental justice (Executive Order 12898) concerns expected. Although not discussed in these sections, health and safety-related issues in the flight corridor are addressed under Vandenberg AFB (Sections 3.1.5 and 4.1.1.5), and under USAKA/RTS and the Marshall Islands (Sections 3.3.3 and 4.1.3.3). 3.2.1 GLOBAL ATMOSPHERE 3.2.1.1 Stratospheric Ozone Layer The stratosphere, which extends from 6 mi (10 km) to approximately 30 mi (50 km) in altitude, contains the Earth’s ozone layer (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2008). The ozone layer plays a vital role in absorbing harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Over the last 20 years, anthropogenic (human-made) gases released into the atmosphere—primarily chlorine related substances—have threatened ozone concentrations in the stratosphere. Such materials include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which have been widely used in electronics and refrigeration systems, and the lesser-used Halons, which are extremely effective fire extinguishing agents. Once released, the motions of the atmosphere mix the gases worldwide until they reach the stratosphere, where ultraviolet radiation releases their chlorine and bromine components. Atomic chlorine (Cl) reacts directly with O3 to form chlorine oxide (ClO) and molecular oxygen (O2) (see equation 1). The ClO in turn can react with a free oxygen atom (O) to form more O2 and a free Cl atom that is ready to attach to more O3 molecules (see equation 2). A single Cl atom can destroy as many as 100,000 O3 molecules during its residence in the stratosphere (Levi, 1988). This combination of reactions occurs throughout the stratosphere, and can be directly linked to global ozone depletion (Hemond, 1994). Equation 1: Cl + O3 → ClO + O2

Equation 2: ClO + O → Cl + O2 Through global compliance with the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and amendments, the worldwide production of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances has been drastically reduced, and banned in many countries. A continuation of these compliance efforts is expected to allow for a slow recovery of the ozone layer (World Meteorological Organization [WMO], 2006).

44


3.2.1.2 Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming GHG are components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect and global warming. Some GHG occur naturally in the atmosphere, while others result from human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. Federal agencies, states, and local communities address global warming by preparing GHG inventories and adopting policies that will result in a decrease of GHG emissions. According to the Kyoto Protocol and the California Climate Action Registry, there are six GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (CARB, 2009b; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2008). Although the direct GHG (CO2, CH4, and N2O) occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed GHG atmospheric concentrations. From the pre-industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2004, concentrations of CO2 have increased globally by 35 percent. Within the US, fuel combustion accounted for 94 percent of all CO2 emissions released in 2005. On a global scale, fossil fuel combustion added approximately 30 x 109 tons (27 x 109 metric tons) of CO2 to the atmosphere in 2004, of which the US accounted for about 22 percent (USEPA, 2007b). Since 1900, the Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 1.2° to 1.4° Fahrenheit (F) (0.7° to 0.8° Celsius [C]). The warmest global average temperatures on record have all occurred within the past 15 years, with the warmest 2 years being 1998 and 2005 (USEPA, 2009). With this in mind, the DARPA and the USAF are poised to support climate-changing initiatives globally, while preserving military operations, sustainability, and readiness by working, where possible, to reduce GHG emissions (Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment, 2005). 3.2.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The affected environment for the over-ocean flight corridor is described in the following subsections in terms of its environmental setting, threatened and endangered species, and other protected species. For purposes of this analysis, the ROI is focused primarily on the two HTV-2 flight corridors over the North Pacific Ocean, where sonic booms and rocket motor drop zones might occur. 3.2.2.1 Open-Ocean Environment The average ocean depth within much of the ROI is over 10,000 ft (3,056 m). Marine biological communities in the deep ocean waters can be divided into two broad categories: pelagic and benthic. Pelagic communities live in the water column and have little or no association with the bottom, while benthic communities live within, upon, or are otherwise associated with the bottom. The organisms living in pelagic communities may be drifters (plankton) or swimmers (nekton). The plankton includes larvae of benthic species, so a pelagic species in one ecosystem may be a benthic species in another. The plankton consists of plant-like organisms (phytoplankton) and animals (zooplankton) that drift with the ocean currents, with little ability to move through the water on their own. The nekton consists of animals that can swim freely in the ocean, such as fish, squids, sea turtles, and marine mammals. Benthic communities are made up of marine organisms that live on or near the sea floor, such as bottom dwelling fish, shrimps, worms, snails, and starfish. The North Pacific Ocean contains a number of threatened, endangered, and other protected species, including whales and small cetaceans, pinnipeds, and sea turtles. These are listed in Table 3-8 for areas within the ROI. Many of these species can be found off the West Coast of the US or near the Hawaiian Islands, but they are sometimes seasonal in occurrence because of unique migration patterns. Some species, particularly the larger cetaceans, can occur hundreds or thousands of miles from land.

45

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel


Table 3-8. Protected Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Species Occurring within the North Pacific Over-Ocean Flight Corridor

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status

Pinnipeds

Northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus MMPA Guadalupe fur seal Arctocephalus townsendi T California sea lion Zalophus californianus MMPA Pacific harbor seal Phoca vitulina richardsi MMPA

Northern elephant seal Mirounga angustirostris MMPA Steller sea lion Eumetopias jubatus E

Hawaiian monk seal Monachus schauinslandi E

Small Cetaceans

Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena MMPA

Dall’s porpoise Phocoenoides dalli MMPA Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus MMPA

Common dolphin Delphinus delphis MMPA Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris MMPA Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba MMPA

Northern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis borealis MMPA Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus MMPA

Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliquidens MMPA Pantropical spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata MMPA

Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis MMPA Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei MMPA

Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus MMPA Killer whale Orcinus orca MMPA

False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens MMPA Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata MMPA Dwarf sperm whale Kogia sima MMPA

Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps MMPA Melon-headed whale Peponocephala electra MMPA

Beaked Whales Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris MMPA

Longman’s beaked whale Indopacetus pacificus MMPA Blainsville’s beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris MMPA

Large Odontocetes and Baleen Whales Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus E

Gray whale Eschrichtius robustus MMPA Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae E

North Pacific right whale Eubalaena japonica E Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis E

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus E Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus E

Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni MMPA Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata MMPA

46


Table 3-8. Protected Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Species Occurring within the North Pacific Over-Ocean Flight Corridor (cont’d)


Sea Turtles Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T Olive ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys oliveacea T Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea E

Notes: MMPA = Protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act E = Endangered T = Threatened

Source: NOAA, 2009a; USAF, 2006.

In the marine environment, there are many different sources of noise, both natural and anthropogenic. Biologically produced sounds include whale songs, dolphin clicks, and fish vocalizations. Natural geophysical sources include wind-generated waves, earthquakes, precipitation, and lightning storms. Anthropogenic sounds are generated by a variety of activities, including commercial shipping, geophysical surveys, oil drilling and production, dredging and construction, sonar systems, DOD test activities and training maneuvers, and oceanographic research. (USAF, 2006) While measurements for sound pressure levels in air are referenced to 20 µPa, underwater sound levels are normalized to 1 µPa at 3.3 ft (1 m) away from the source, a standard used in underwater sound measurement. Within the ROI, some of the loudest underwater sounds generated are most likely to originate from storms, ships, and some marine mammals. The sound of thunder from lightning strikes can have source levels of up to 260 dB (re to 1 µPa). A passing supertanker can generate up to 190 dB (re to 1 µPa) of low frequency sound. For marine mammals, dolphins are known to produce brief echolocation signals over 225 dB (re to 1 µPa), while mature sperm whale clicks have been calculated as high as 232 dB (re to 1 µPa). (USAF, 2006) 3.2.2.2 Terrestrial (Atoll/Island) Environments Along the HTV-2 over-ocean flight corridors, the ROI includes those land areas that could potentially be affected by the resulting sonic boom. As shown in Figure 2-4, Mission A could affect the NWHI, while Mission B could affect Wake Island. These island areas are described below. Northwestern Hawaiian Islands The NWHI are a remote chain of atolls, islands, and shoals that stretch for more than 1,000 nmi (1,852 km) northwest of the main Hawaiian Islands. The NWHI—now part of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, the largest marine conservation area in the world—contains abundant plant, bird, and marine life. The monument was established in 2006 by Presidential Proclamation 8031 to protect marine resources in the area, including coral reefs, the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, and various threatened and endangered sea turtle species. (71 FR 36443-36474; NOAA, 2009b) The Proclamation requires that all activities and exercises of the Armed Forces must be carried out in a manner that avoids, to the extent practicable and consistent with operational requirements, adverse

47


impacts on the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument resources and qualities. It also states that the prohibitions required by the Proclamation will not apply to those military activities and exercises that are consistent with applicable laws (71 FR 36443-36474). The proposed HTV-2 flight test over the monument would be consistent with these requirements; thus, the test activities would be exempt from the Proclamation’s prohibitions. Within the NWHI, the areas that could potentially be affected by the sonic boom are Maro Reef, Gardner Pinnacles, Brooks Banks, and French Frigate Shoals, which are all located in the central portion of the island chain. The only dry land in this area consists of small rocky pinnacles and numerous sand islands located mostly within the French Frigate Shoals. The Shoals is the most important breeding and nesting area for the green sea turtle in the entire Hawaiian archipelago. As much as 80 percent of all green sea turtles in the entire Hawaiian archipelago return to French Frigate Shoals to nest and breed. The majority of the world’s population of Hawaiian monk seals is found in the NWHI where critical habitat has been designated. The French Frigate Shoals is one of several main breeding sites for Monk seals, and they have also been observed at Gardner Pinnacles and Maro Reef. The Shoals is also home to millions of migratory birds. On one island alone, an estimated 1.5 million Sooty Terns nest and breed. (NMFS, 2007; NOAA, 2009c) Wake Island Wake Atoll, which includes Wake Island, is a coral atoll located about 2,133 nmi (3,950 km) west of Hawaii. The “V” shaped atoll, consisting of three islands and a central lagoon, has approximately 2.85 square mi (7.38 square km) of dry land surrounded by a barrier reef. As previously described, Wake Island is an unorganized, unincorporated territory of the US administered by the US Department of the Interior. The airfield and support facilities, which are managed by the USAF, take up most of the land area. (MDA, 2007b) Wake Island has a biologically diverse environment that includes insects, arthropods, small mammals, marine mammals, birds, and over 200 species of plants. More than 30 species of birds have been identified, including seabirds, shorebirds, and land birds. All seabirds present on the atoll, except for tropical species, are conspicuous nesters that lay their eggs in the open, either on bare ground or exposed in shrubs or small trees. Federal protection is provided for the migratory seabirds and for the few threatened and endangered species found on the atoll, including the Mariana crow, Mariana moorhen, and the Micronesian kingfisher. Green sea turtles have been observed in the near shore and lagoon waters, but no nesting activity has been confirmed. Hawksbill sea turtles also are suspected to occur at Wake Island, but there are no records or accounts of confirmed sightings. (MDA, 2007b) 3.3 US ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL/RONALD REAGAN BALLISTIC MISSILE

DEFENSE TEST SITE AND THE MARSHALL ISLANDS The RMI is located approximately 2,000 nmi (3,706 km) southwest of Hawaii (see Figure 2-4) and consists of approximately 1225 islands in 29 atolls scattered over 750,000 square mi (1,942,500 square km) (RMI Embassy, 2005). Centrally located within the RMI (see Figure 2-5), USAKA/RTS consists of all or portions of 11 out of 100 coral islands that enclose a large lagoon. Since the late 1950s, the Kwajalein Atoll has served as a primary site for testing ICBMs, sea-launched ballistic missiles, and antiballistic missiles. Because of the Compact of Free Association between the RMI and the US, all US Government activities at USAKA/RTS must conform to specific compliance requirements, coordination procedures, and environmental standards identified in the UES. As specified in Section 2-2 of the UES, these standards also apply to all USAKA/RTS activities occurring elsewhere within the RMI, including the territorial

48


waters5 of the RMI (USASMDC/ARSTRAT, 2006). Thus, all HTV-2 program actions proposed to occur at USAKA/RTS, at other RMI atolls, and within RMI territorial waters must comply with the UES. Rationale for Environmental Resources Analyzed For the proposed HTV-2 flight test activities within the Marshall Islands, noise, biological resources, and health and safety are the only resource areas analyzed. Water quality was also included in the analysis to account for potential impacts on marine life. Other resource topics were not analyzed further in this area because: (1) the Proposed Action does not require any new construction or extensive ground-disturbing activities, thus no impacts to soils would be expected; (2) mostly existing base personnel would be involved, thus, there are no socioeconomic concerns; (3) through avoidance of high altitude jet routes in the proposed BOA impact area (USASMDC/ARSTRAT, 2007) and the application of existing USAKA/RTS range safety procedures, there would be no major impacts on airspace; and (4) the Proposed Action is well within the limits of current operations at USAKA/RTS and it involves minimal activities at other RMI locations. As a result, there would be no adverse effects on land use, utilities, waste management, or transportation; and little or no impacts to air quality would occur. 3.3.1 NOISE During terminal flight and impact in the BOA, the HTV-2 vehicle has the potential to affect land areas with sonic booms. Thus, the ROI for noise is focused primarily on those RMI atolls and islands closest to the HTV-2 flight paths. For the Mission A flight path, Bikar, Taka, and Utirik Atolls might be affected. For the Mission B flight path, Rongerik Atoll and possibly the eastern tip of Rongelap Atoll could be affected (see Figure 2-5). Not all of the atolls, however, are populated. Census records from 1999 show 19 residents on Rongelap Atoll, 433 residents on Utirik Atoll, and no populations on Bikar, Taka, or Rongerik Atolls (RMI Economic Policy, Planning, and Statistics Office [EPPSO], 2005). Natural sources of noise on these remote atolls include the constant wave action along shorelines and the occasional thunderstorm. The sound of thunder, one of the loudest sounds expected here, can register up to 120 dB (Vavrek et al., 2008). Within the atoll communities, other sources of noise would include a limited number of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, and the occasional fixed-wing aircraft at the Rongelap and Utirik airfields. Typical daytime noise levels within the local communities are expected to range between 55 and 65 dBA (USASSDC, 1993). 3.3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The UES provides protection for a wide variety of marine mammals, sea turtles, fish, coral species, migratory birds, and other terrestrial and marine species, which are listed in Section 3-4 of the Standards (USASMDC/ARSTRAT, 2006). This protection applies to all of the following categories of biological resources occurring within the Marshall Islands, including RMI territorial waters:

Any threatened or endangered species listed under the US Endangered Species Act (as amended)

Any species proposed for designation, candidates for designation, or petitioned for designation to the endangered species list in accordance with the US Endangered Species Act (as amended)

5 Territorial waters of the RMI are defined as the belt of ocean measured from the seaward low-water line of the RMI reef and extending seaward a distance of 12 nmi (22 km) (USASMDC/ARSTRAT, 2006).

49


All species designated by the RMI under applicable RMI statutes, such as the RMI Endangered Species Act of 1975, Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1990, Marine Resources (Trochus) Act of 1983, and the Marine Resources Authority Act of 1989

Marine mammals designated under the US Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972

Bird species pursuant to the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (MBCA)

Species protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or mutually

agreed on by USAKA/RTS, USFWS, NMFS, and the RMI Government as being designated as protected species. (USASMDC/ARSTRAT, 2006).

For purposes of this analysis, the ROI focused on: (1) the RMI atolls, islands, and BOA that could be affected by the HTV-2 sonic booms; and (2) the BOA where the HTV-2 vehicles would impact. The following subsections describe biological resources for marine and terrestrial environments within the ROI according to the environmental setting and the threatened, endangered, or other protected species that might be present. 3.3.2.1 Terrestrial (Atoll/Island) Environments For terrestrial and reef-related biological resources, the ROI for the Mission A flight path includes Bikar, Taka, and Utirik Atolls. For the Mission B flight path, the ROI includes Rongelap and Rongerik Atolls (see Figure 2-5). A list of special status species potentially occurring in these areas is provided in Appendix C. Descriptions of each atoll are provided below. Bikar Atoll Bikar Atoll is a small, uninhabited atoll made up of seven islands with a total land area of approximately 0.19 square mi (0.49 square km) (RMI Embassy, 2005). There is a near continuous coral reef surrounding the atoll, with a narrow forked passage on the western side that makes boat access to the lagoon very difficult, particularly at ebb tide (United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre [UNEP-WCMC], 1990). The atoll has a unique arid ecosystem that is relatively undisturbed by invasive and exotic plant species. The main islands are partially forested with a dense, mixed growth of trees and shrubs. Nine plant species have been identified, including Pisonia and Cocos (coconut palm) trees. At least 18 bird species have been observed, including migratory sea and shore birds, and some tropical species (e.g., frigate birds, red-footed booby, brown noddy, and the red-tailed tropic bird). Numerous bird nests and small rookeries have also been noted on the islands. Green sea turtles are relatively abundant at the atoll, with signs of nesting activity greater here than on any other RMI atoll surveyed. In 1988, over 264 sets of nesting tracks were observed, along with numerous new and old nests. The reef and lagoon environments show a diverse fish population. Small clam and other bivalve species are noted as being abundant, including the top shell Trochus. (RMI Office of Environmental Planning and Policy Coordination [OEPPC], 2008; Thomas et al., 1989; UNEP-WCMC, 1990) Because of its pristine environment and isolation, Bikar is one of several RMI atolls that have been nominated as a United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site (UNESCO, 2009). Bikar Atoll has also been recommended for protection as a National Preserve (RMI OEPPC, 2008).

50


Rongelap Atoll Rongelap Atoll is one of the larger atolls in the RMI, made up of 61 islands with a total land area of approximately 3.07 square mi (7.95 square km) (RMI Embassy, 2005). Along the surrounding reef, there are several passages for larger vessels to enter the central lagoon. As previously mentioned, the airfield on Rongelap Island also allows access to the area via fixed-wing aircraft. Information on biological resources at Rongelap Atoll is very limited and based primarily on vegetation observations from the mid-late 1950s. In 1956, vegetation on the larger islands was described as being in generally poor condition, consisting of scrub, mixed forests, and some pure forests of Pisonia trees. Similarly, coconut palm plantations were found in generally poor condition. Speculations at the time were that the poor conditions were the result of radioactive fallout from a US nuclear test conducted at Bikini Atoll (located to the west) 2 years earlier. Based on later studies of neighboring Rongerik Atoll (located to the east), it is expected that ecological conditions on Rongelap have much improved since the 1950s (see discussion below on Rongerik). Wildlife information for Rongelap is very limited. Migratory sea birds are known to nest on the islands. It is expected that green sea turtle nesting occurs on some beaches as well. (Fosberg, 1990; RMI OEPPC, 2008) Rongerik Atoll Rongerik Atoll is a relatively small, uninhabited atoll made up of 14 islands with a total land area of approximately 0.65 square mi (1.68 square km) (RMI Embassy, 2005). Large breaks in the reef should allow easy passage for larger vessels into the central lagoon. Similar to Rongelap Atoll, environmental damage occurred at Rongerik from radioactive fallout in 1954. Later studies on Rongerik identified 35 plant species with 26 being native and the remaining nonnative. Interior island areas were noted to contain high-quality Pisonia and Pisonia/Cordia forests and some coconut palm trees. Twelve kinds of sea and shore birds and other migrant species have been identified on Rongerik Atoll, including red-footed boobies, brown boobies, Pacific reef heron, and great crested terns. The presence of numerous bird nests and several colonies provide evidence of the importance of Rongerik Atoll as a bird breeding area. Green sea turtle nesting has been noted on some of the beaches. In the local waters, reef fish were abundant, including some species considered rare at other atolls. A few live giant clams have been observed. The reefs overall are well developed with good habitat diversity. (RMI OEPPC, 2008; Thomas et al., 1989) Rongerik Atoll has been nominated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, because of its vegetation associations, diverse reef communities, and other unique natural features (UNESCO, 2009). Rongerik Atoll has also been recommended for protection as a National Preserve (RMI OEPPC, 2008). Taka Atoll Taka Atoll is a small, uninhabited atoll made up of six islands with a total land area of approximately 0.22 square mi (0.57 square km) (RMI Embassy, 2005). The central lagoon is encircled by an extensive reef system, but one wide pass is suitable for larger vessels (Thomas et al., 1989). The larger islands have scrubby forests and areas of dense mixed forests of Pisonia and other tree species. There is also a large abandoned coconut palm grove. A total of 23 plant species have been identified on Taka Atoll. Bird species diversity is relatively high; up to 19 species were identified during prior surveys, including red-footed boobies, brown boobies, sooty terns, crested terns, great frigate birds, brown noddies, and spotted sandpipers. Several nesting bird colonies were observed on the islands. Green sea turtle nesting is also evident, with a limited number of turtle tracks observed. Along the reef, fish

51


diversity is considered normal, but populations are high. Gastropod mollusks are abundant, including a limited number of top shell Trochus. Giant clams were observed, as well. (RMI OEPPC, 2008; Thomas et al., 1989) Taka Atoll has been nominated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, because of its diverse range of habitats, sea birds, and reef species, particularly giant clams (UNESCO, 2009). Taka Atoll has also been recommended for protection as a National Park (RMI OEPPC, 2008). Utirik (Utdrik) Atoll Utirik Atoll is a small atoll made up of 10 islands with a total land area of approximately 0.94 square mi (2.43 square km) (RMI Embassy, 2005). The central lagoon is encircled by an extensive reef system with limited access for vessels. The airfield on Utirik Island also allows access to the area via fixed-wing aircraft. Information on biological resources at Utirik Atoll is very limited and based primarily on vegetation observations from the mid-late 1950s. Utirik has been populated for many years, and accordingly, is altered to a greater degree than the other northern RMI atolls. Like Rongelap and Rongerik Atolls, Utirik was also exposed to radioactive fallout in 1954. Nearly 50 plant species have been identified on Utirik including an increase in weed establishment. Much of the vegetation cover is native scrub forest, consisting of Pisonia, Cordia, and/or other tree and shrub species. Coconut palms are also common and widespread on several of the islands. Bird populations are not very prominent. Although no information was found that describes marine life at the atoll, it is expected that a variety of fish, coral, clams, and other marine invertebrates can be found in the local waters. (Fosberg, 1990; RMI OEPPC, 2008) 3.3.2.2 Broad Ocean Area Environment For biological resources in the BOA, the ROI focuses on the deep ocean waters north of USAKA/ RTS where the HTV-2 impacts would occur. The ROI also includes other international ocean areas and territorial waters of the RMI that might be affected by the HTV-2 sonic booms. Ocean depths in this region of the RMI generally range between 6,560 and 16,400 ft (2000 and 5000 m) (Hein et al., 1999). Just as described for the open-ocean environment in Section 3.2.2.1, there is a wide variety of pelagic and benthic communities in the BOA. A number of threatened, endangered, and other protected species occur here, including whales, small cetaceans, and sea turtles. These are listed in Table 3-9 for the ROI. Some of these species occur only seasonally for breeding or because of unique migration patterns. As described in Section 3.2.2.1, there are many different sources of noise in the marine environment, both natural and anthropogenic. Within the ROI, some of the loudest underwater sounds generated are most likely to originate from storms, ships, and some marine mammals. 3.3.3 HEALTH AND SAFETY For the two HTV-2 flight tests, USAKA/RTS would provide range support for the terminal phase of each flight. At USAKA/RTS and at other locations within the RMI, there would be no requirements or issues related to launch safety, launch hazards, or rocket propellant handling. Thus, the ROI for health and safety focuses on the HTV-2 terminal flight paths and impact areas in the BOA north of USAKA/RTS, including consideration of military personnel, contractors, and the general public.

52


Table 3-9. Protected Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Species

Occurring within the Broad Ocean Area of the Marshall Islands Common Name Scientific Name Status

Marine Mammals

Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus E, MMPA

Finback Whale Balaenoptera physalus E, MMPA

Humpback Whale Megaptera novaengliae E, MMPA

Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus E, MMPA

Offshore Spotted Dolphin Stenella attenuata attenuata RS, MMPA

Coastal Spotted Dolphin Stenella attenuata graffmani RS, MMPA

Eastern Spinner Dolphin Stenella longirostris orientalis RS, MMPA

Whitebelly Spinner Dolphin Stenella longirostris longirostris RS, MMPA

Costa Rican Spinner Dolphin Stenella longirostris centroamericana RS, MMPA

Common Dolphin Delphinus delphis RS, MMPA

Striped Dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba RS, MMPA

Spinner Dolphin Stenella longirostris RS, MMPA

Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops gilli RS, MMPA

Risso’s Dolphin Grampus griseus RS, MMPA

Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops sp. RS, MMPA

Pygmy Sperm Whale Kogia breviceps MMPA

False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens MMPA

Short-Finned Pilot Whale Globicephala macrorhynchus MMPA

Melon Headed Whale Peponocephala electra MMPA

Pygmy Killer Whale Feresa attenuata MMPA

Killer Whale Orcinus orca MMPA

Blainville’s Beaked Whale Mesoplodon densirostris MMPA

Sea Turtles

Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas T, RS

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta T, RS

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle Lapidochelys olivacea T, RS

Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea E, RS

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E, RS

Notes: E = Endangered T = Threatened RS = Protected under RMI Statute MMPA = Protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act

Source: NOAA, 2009a; USASMDC/ARSTRAT, 2006.

USAKA/RTS has the unique mission of serving as the target area for a wide variety of missile launch operations from Vandenberg AFB, CA, and from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii. These missions are conducted only with the approval of the USAKA/RTS Commander. A specific procedure is established to ensure that such approval is granted only when the safety requirements for proposed test activities have been adequately addressed. All program operations must receive the approval of the Safety Office at USAKA/RTS. This step is accomplished through presentation of the proposed program to the Safety Office. All safety analyses,

53


standard operating procedures, and other safety documentation applicable to those operations affecting the USAKA/RTS must be provided, along with an overview of mission objectives, support requirements, and schedule. The Safety Office evaluates this information and ensures that all USAKA/RTS range safety requirements (including both ground and flight safety) and supporting regulations are followed. (USASMDC/ARSTRAT, 2007) Range safety provides protection to USAKA/RTS personnel, inhabitants of the Marshall Islands, and ships and aircraft operating in areas potentially affected by missions. Specific procedures are required for the preparation and execution of missions involving aircraft, missile launches, and reentry payloads like the HTV-2. These procedures are based on regulations, directives, and flight safety plans for individual missions. The flight safety plans include evaluating risks to inhabitants and property near the flight path, calculating trajectory and debris areas, and specifying range clearance and notification procedures (USASMDC/ARSTRAT, 2007). Criteria used at USAKA/RTS to determine debris hazard risks are in accordance with RCC Standard 321-07, Common Risk Criteria Standards for National Test Ranges (RCC, 2007). Inhabitants near the flight path, as well as international air and sea traffic in caution areas designated for specific missions, are notified of potentially hazardous operations. As described earlier for Vandenberg AFB, a NOTMAR and a NOTAM are transmitted to appropriate authorities to clear traffic from these caution areas and to inform the public of impending missions. The warning messages describe the time, the area affected, and safe alternate routes. The RMI is also informed in advance of rocket launches and reentry payload missions. USAKA/RTS radar and/or visual sweeps of hazard areas are accomplished immediately prior to operations to assist in the clearance of non-mission ships and aircraft. (USAF, 2004; USASMDC/ARSTRAT, 2007)

54


4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter presents the potential environmental consequences of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative, described in Chapter 2.0 of this EA, when compared to the affected environment described in Chapter 3.0. The amount of detail presented in each section of the analysis is proportional to the potential for impact. Both direct and indirect impacts6 are addressed where applicable. In addition, cumulative effects that might occur are identified in Section 4.3. Appropriate environmental management and monitoring actions and requirements are also included in this chapter, where necessary, and summarized in Section 4.4. A list of all agencies, organizations, and persons consulted as part of this analysis is provided in Chapter 6.0. 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The following subsections describe the potential environmental consequences of implementing the Proposed Action at Vandenberg AFB, within the over-ocean flight corridor, and at USAKA/RTS and the Marshall Islands. Environmental issues associated with the proposed HTV-2 flight tests vary widely at each location, and as such, the resources analyzed at each location also vary. A breakdown of the resources analyzed in detail, by location, is shown in Table 4-1, along with the section numbers where the respective discussions are found.

Table 4-1. Resources Analyzed in Detail by Location

Location Air Quality Noise Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

Health & Safety

Hazardous Materials & Waste Mgt

Vandenberg AFB Sect. 4.1.1.1 Sect. 4.1.1.2 Sect. 4.1.1.3 Sect. 4.1.1.4 Sect. 4.1.1.5 Sect. 4.1.1.6

Over-Ocean Flight Corridor and the Global Environment

Sect. 4.1.2.1 1 Sect. 4.1.2.2

USAKA/RTS and the Marshall Islands, including the BOA

Sect. 4.1.3.1 Sect. 4.1.3.2 Sect. 4.1.3.3

1 Air quality at this location focuses on the stratospheric ozone layer and GHS within the Global Atmosphere.

Various management controls and engineering systems are in place at Vandenberg AFB and at USAKA/RTS to manage and implement environmental and safety requirements. Required by Federal, state, DOD, and agency-specific regulations, these measures are implemented through normal operating procedures. To help ensure that procedures are followed, base personnel and contractors receive periodic training on applicable environmental and safety requirements. In addition, environmental audits by both internal offices and external agencies are conducted at the installations to verify compliance.

66 Direct impacts are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect impacts occur later in time or are further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

55


4.1.1 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE 4.1.1.1 Air Quality Although short-term minor adverse effects to air quality would be expected with the implementation of the Proposed Action, the overall impacts would be insignificant. The total direct and indirect emissions, however, would not exceed de minimis (minimal importance) thresholds, be regionally significant, or contribute to a violation of Vandenberg AFB’s air operating permits. The general conformity rules require Federal agencies to determine whether their action(s) would increase emissions of criteria pollutants above preset threshold levels (40 CFR 93.153). These de minimis rates vary depending on the severity of the nonattainment and geographic location. Because Santa Barbara County is an attainment area for all NAAQS, the general conformity rules do not apply (40 CFR 93; SBCAPCD Rule 702). For the purposes of this EA, however, these threshold levels were used to determine whether implementation of the Proposed Action would be significant under NEPA. The de minimis levels of 100 tons per year (tpy) for all criteria pollutants were used for comparison purposes. The total direct and indirect emissions associated with the Proposed Action were estimated and would not exceed de minimis levels (Table 4-2). Because AQCR 032 and Santa Barbara County are an attainment area, there are no existing emission budgets. Due to the limited size and scope of the Proposed Action, it is not anticipated that the estimated emission would make up 10 percent or more of regional emissions for any criteria pollutant and be regionally significant. Detailed methodologies for estimating the air emissions are described in Appendix D.

Table 4-2. Estimated Emissions of Criteria Pollutants for the Proposed Action (Tons per Year)

Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 Site Modifications 0.20 0.28 0.05 0.000 0.01 0.01Pre-Launch Preparations and Rocket Motor Transportation 1.28 0.31 0.14 0.001 0.02 0.01Launch Activities1 39.30 0.03 0.00 0.003 12.31 8.60Post-Launch Operations 0.14 0.02 0.11 0.000 0.00 0.00

Total 40.92 0.64 0.31 0.005 12.34 8.62De Minimis Thresholds (tpy) 100 100 100 100 100 100

Exceeds De Minimis Threshold No No No No No Nol PM10 emissions from launch vehicle exhaust are assumed to be 10.3 percent total aluminum oxide (Al2O3), while PM2.5

emissions are assumed to be 7.2 percent total Al2O3 (USAF, 2004).

4.1.1.1.1 Site Modifications, Rocket Motor Transportation, and Pre-Launch Preparations Site modifications would be minor and limited to just the IRF (Building 1900). Modifications to existing facilities would not include any clearing, grading, or open burning. No fugitive dust emissions are expected. For the site modifications, pre-launch preparations, and local rocket motor transportation emissions shown in Table 4-2, all of the sources listed below were estimated for direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants. Detailed methodologies for estimating the air emissions are provided in Appendix D.

56


Combustive emissions from equipment used for Building 1900 modifications Painting/corrosion control efforts from refurbishing activities at Building 1900 Emissions from delivery of equipment, supplies, and services Employee commuting during facility modifications and pre-launch activities Emissions from transporting booster motors, components, and equipment to Vandenberg AFB Emissions from transporting the HTV-2 vehicles and equipment to the launch site Use of solvent/paints/adhesives during launch vehicle integration

Proper tuning and preventive maintenance of vehicles and other support equipment would minimize engine exhaust emissions. In addition, site modifications and pre-launch preparations for the HTV-2 flights would be conducted in compliance with all applicable SBCAPCD rules and regulations, including those that cover the use of organic solvents (Rule 317), architectural coatings (Rule 323), surface coating of metal parts and products (Rule 330), surface coating of aircraft or aerospace parts and products (Rule 337), or adhesives and sealants (Rule 353) (SBCAPCD, 2009b). No hazardous liquid propellants, such as hydrazine, would be used as part of the Proposed Action. At SLC-8, an emergency power portable generator provided by the launch contractor would be permitted by the SBCAPCD or registered under the CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program. As a result, the proposed site modifications, pre-launch preparations, and rocket motor transportation requirements would not cause significant impacts on local or regional air quality. 4.1.1.1.2 Launch Activities Under the Proposed Action, both flight tests may be conducted within the same year. Therefore, two launches per year were carried forward as a worst-case condition for analysis purposes. In the hours before launch, remote sensors and helicopters (when available) may be used to verify that the hazard areas would be clear of non-mission-essential aircraft, vessels, and personnel. All direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants for the helicopter exhaust emissions and from the HTV-2 flight tests were estimated (Table 4-2). In addition to criteria pollutants, the products of combustion from the Minotaur IV Lite booster would also include other common products of combustion including aluminum oxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Table 4-3 provides a comprehensive breakdown of the booster emissions for two launches. Detailed methodologies for estimating air emissions during launch are provided in Appendix D. During boost flight, the rocket emissions from all stages would be rapidly dispersed over a large geographic area and by prevailing winds. Because the launches would be short-term, discrete events, the time between launches allows the dispersion of the emission products. The emissions per launch at Vandenberg AFB would be the same for each launch vehicle, but the atmospheric concentrations would differ depending on local meteorological conditions at the time of launch, such as temperature profiles, atmospheric stability, wind speeds, and the presence or absence of inversions. No exceedance, however, of air quality standards or health-based standards for non-criteria pollutants would be anticipated. Launch activities would be conducted in compliance with all applicable SBCAPCD rules and regulations. As a result, no significant impacts on local or regional air quality are expected. 4.1.1.1.3 Post-Launch Operations In the hours and days following the launch, a general safety check and cleanup of the launch site would occur. All direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants for worker commuting, the removal of

57


Table 4-3. Exhaust Emissions from Two Minotaur IV Lite Booster Launches (Tons)

Pollutant 1st Stage 2nd Stage 3rd Stage Total Aluminum Oxide (solid) (Al2O3) 35.34 19.43 5.01 59.77 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 21.79 11.98 5.52 39.29 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 2.40 1.32 0.26 3.98 Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 20.88 11.48 0.24 32.61 Water (H2O) 7.34 4.03 0.51 11.88 Hydrogen (H2) 2.20 1.21 0.35 3.75 Nitrogen (N2) 8.25 4.54 3.77 16.56 Other miscellaneous 0.27 0.15 0.00 0.41

Source: SMC Det 12/RPD, 2005. equipment from the launch site, and general refurbishment of the launch facility were estimated (see Table 4-2). Detailed methodologies for estimating air emissions for post-launch activities are provided in Appendix D. Post-launch refurbishment activities would comply with all applicable SBCAPCD rules and regulations, including Rule 323 (architectural coatings) for VOCs found in paints (SBCAPCD, 2009b). No new air emission permits would be required for these operations. With the exception of minor, localized increases in particulate matter from the brushing of blast residues from the launch stool, no significant impacts on local or regional air quality are expected. 4.1.1.2 Noise 4.1.1.2.1 Site Modifications, Rocket Motor Transportation, and Pre-Launch Preparations Noise exposures from proposed modification activities on base are expected to be minimal and short term. Most of the site modification noise would occur at the IRF (Building 1900). The use of trucks, power tools, compressors, and other machinery would be expected to produce noise levels ranging from 85 to 104 dBA at close range (Suter, 2002). The noise generated during pre-launch preparations would come primarily from the use of trucks, cranes, and other load handling equipment. Noise levels from such operations would be expected to range between 84 and 100 dBA in the immediate area surrounding the activities at SLC-8 and at other support facilities (Suter, 2002). For all of these actions, noise exposure levels would comply with USAF Hearing Conservation Program requirements (as described in Section 3.1.2) and other applicable occupational health and safety regulations. Because most of the activities would take place on base, the public in the surrounding communities would not detect an increase in noise levels. As a result, the proposed site modifications, pre-launch preparations, and rocket motor transportation requirements would not cause significant noise impacts. 4.1.1.2.2 Launch Activities Noise levels generated by each HTV-2 program launch would vary, depending on the launch trajectory used and the weather conditions during launch. At a distance of 1,000 ft (305 m) from the SLC-8 launch pad, the launch noise would be approximately 131 dB ASEL (Do, 1994). With increasing distance, the ASEL generated would decrease to around 85 dB nearly 8 mi (13 km) away. Figure 4-1 depicts the

58


100 dB

90 dB

85 dB

Source: USAF, 2006

Figure 4-1. Predicted A-Weighted Sound Exposure Levels for Minotaur IV Lite Launches from Vandenberg AFB, CA

predicted maximum noise-level contours for proposed Minotaur IV Lite vehicle launches from SLC-8. The modeling results depicted in the figure represents a maximum predicted scenario that does not account for variations in weather or terrain. Based on the modeling results, the City of Lompoc and other communities off base would be outside the 85-dBA noise contour. While these noise exposure levels can be characterized as very loud in some areas, they would occur infrequently, are very short in duration (about 20 seconds of intense sound per launch), and have little effect on the CNEL in these areas. Personnel working near the area at the time of launch would be required to wear adequate hearing protection in accordance with USAF Hearing Conservation Program requirements. If helicopters are used to verify that beach areas and near shore waters are clear of non-participants, then they would generally limit their flights to the areas around the base, thus also limiting the noise effects on local communities. The sonic boom generated by the Minotaur IV Lite launch vehicle would occur down range, well off the CA Coast. Flight trajectories would be in a westerly direction (Figure 2-3), and as such, the resulting sonic boom would be inaudible over coastal areas, including the northern Channel Islands. Although sonic boom data for the Minotaur IV Lite vehicle is unavailable, it is expected that the resulting overpressures would be considerably less than the 7.2 psf expected from the much larger Atlas V system launched from South Vandenberg (USAF, 2000). Typically, the sonic boom would last no more than a few hundred milliseconds.

59


As a result, no significant impacts on the human environment are expected from launch noise or sonic booms. For discussions of potential impacts on protected wildlife species, refer to Sections 4.1.1.3 and 4.1.2.2. 4.1.1.2.3 Post-Launch Operations Noise levels generated during post-launch operations would be similar to those generated during pre-launch preparations, but for a shorter duration. Thus, no impacts to ambient noise levels are expected. 4.1.1.3 Biological Resources 4.1.1.3.1 Site Modifications, Rocket Motor Transportation, and Pre-Launch Preparations At Vandenberg AFB, site modifications and pre-launch preparations are expected to produce noise levels ranging from 84 to 104 dBA near the activities (see Section 4.1.1.2.1). These activities would be relatively short-term and intermittent, and the vehicles and other equipment used would normally remain on paved or gravel areas. Overall, it is expected that these activities would not have significant impacts on local vegetation and wildlife, because: (1) noise exposures from these activities generally would be short-term and localized around existing facilities and along roadways; and (2) no soil or vegetation disturbance is expected to occur. For these same reasons, the proposed activities would not have significant impacts on threatened or endangered species (e.g., Gaviota tarplant and the California red-legged frog) or other sensitive habitats. 4.1.1.3.2 Launch Activities Potential issues associated with the HTV-2 program launches at Vandenberg AFB include wildlife responses to helicopter overflights (if conducted), wildlife responses and potential injury from excessive launch noise, and the release of potentially harmful chemicals in the form of exhaust emissions. The release of unburned propellant from a possible launch failure or termination is also considered. The potential effects of these actions on the biological resources at Vandenberg AFB are described in the paragraphs that follow. Vegetation Although heat and emissions from rocket exhaust can sometimes result in localized foliar scorching and spotting, such effects from larger launch systems have been shown to be temporary and not of sufficient intensity to cause significant, long-term damage to vegetation (National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], 2002; USAF, 2000). As previously mentioned, the vegetated areas immediately around the SLC-8 launch site are maintained to minimize the risk of brush fires. During launch operations, emergency firefighting personnel and equipment would also be on standby status as a protective measure in case of brush fires. Wildlife Helicopter Overflights. When available, base helicopters might be flown over the ROI on the day of launch and possibly the day before to ensure launch hazard areas are clear of unauthorized personnel. Helicopter overflights have the potential to disturb marine mammals and birds, causing separation of pinniped mothers from their offspring; potential loss of eggs when birds fly from nests; and abandonment of favored resting, feeding, or breeding areas.

60


Under the terms of the MMPA, as amended, short-term behavioral effects on marine mammals are considered. According to the MMPA, “harassment” means any act of “pursuit, torment, or annoyance” that has the potential to injure or disturb marine mammals or marine mammal stock.7 Proposed HTV-2 program launches and other system launches at Vandenberg AFB have the potential to harass marine mammals. To address this issue, base personnel consulted the NMFS to obtain a programmatic “take” permit to allow Level B Harassment on four pinniped species, including the California sea lion, Pacific harbor seal, and the northern elephant seal. A 5-year take permit was originally issued to Vandenberg AFB in 1997, and was later re-issued in February 2004 and again in February 2009. Under the permit, the NMFS is allowed to issue annual Letters of Authorization (LOAs) to Vandenberg AFB for these harassments, which are classified as a small number of “takes” incidental to space vehicle and test flight activities. The programmatic take permit and LOAs allow the base to expose pinnipeds, including breeding harbor seals, to missile and rocket launches, and aircraft flight tests. They also authorize incidental harassment of pinnipeds from helicopter overflights. (74 FR 6236-6244; USAF, 1997) Prior observations of helicopter overflights in launch hazard areas have shown them to be a greater source of disturbance than the rocket launches (Bowles, 2000). Under the current NMFS permit and LOA, helicopters and other aircraft are required to maintain a minimum slant range of 1,000 ft (305 m) year round from recognized seal haul-outs and rookeries, including the shoreline areas between Point Pedernales and Oil Well Canyon just east of Rocky Point (see Figure 3-3) (74 FR 6236-6244; VAFB, 2007a). These requirements can be modified only in emergencies, such as during search-and-rescue and firefighting operations. When helicopter flight restrictions are observed, there are negligible impacts on marine mammals and other wildlife. Launch Noise. As previously analyzed in the OSP EA (USAF, 2006), noise generated by Minotaur IV launches from SLC-8 may result in the incidental harassment of pinnipeds along the base shoreline. Because the flight trajectories would be in a westerly direction (Figure 2-3), the resulting sonic boom would not affect seals, sea lions, and other pinnipeds located in the northern Channel Islands. To confirm that no monitoring of pinnipeds on San Miguel Island would be needed during the launches, Vandenberg AFB personnel coordinated with NMFS. In an electronic response to Vandenberg AFB (dated November 6, 2008), the NMFS agreed that monitoring on San Miguel Island is not required (see Appendix A, page A-18). On base, the noise and visual disturbances from launches may cause pinnipeds to move towards or enter the water. Field surveys have shown that the louder the launch noise, the longer it took for seals to begin returning to the haul-out site and for the numbers to return to pre-launch levels. Seals may begin to return to the haul-out site within 2 to 55 minutes of the launch disturbance, and pre-launch population levels at the haul-out site were usually restored within 45 to 120 minutes after launch. No evidence of injury, mortality, or abnormal behavior has been observed for Pacific harbor seals following a launch from Vandenberg AFB. Additionally, research has shown that population levels at the pinniped haul-out sites have remained constant. (69 FR 5720-5728; SRS Technologies [SRS], 2000, 2001a) 7 Under the MMPA, two categories of harassment are defined: (a) the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment), and (b) disturbance to a marine mammal or marine mammal stock by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, e.g., migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, or feeding (Level B harassment). Prior rulings by NMFS, however, have determined that a momentary behavioral reaction of a protected marine mammal to an acoustic event that is both brief and isolated in time does not qualify as Level B harassment (US Department of the Navy [USN], 2008b). In addition, Section 319 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-136) revised the definition of “harassment” in the MMPA (16 USC 1362(18)) as it applies to military readiness activities. Under the revised definitions, “Level A harassment” is “any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild.” Level B harassment is “any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered.”

61


To minimize potential long-term effects of launch noise on pinnipeds, the programmatic take permit requires several measures, including: (1) schedule missions, whenever possible, to avoid launches during the harbor seal pupping season (March 1 through June 30), unless constrained by factors including, but not limited to, human safety, national security, or for a space vehicle launch trajectory necessary to meet mission objectives; (2) conduct biological monitoring for all launches during the harbor seal pupping season in accordance with permit procedures, and report the results to the NMFS; and (3) conduct both acoustic and biological monitoring for all new space and missile launch vehicles during at least the first launch (including an existing vehicle from a new launch site), whether it occurs within the pupping season or not (74 FR 6236-6244). The proposed HTV-2 program launches would be conducted in accordance with the measures specified in the programmatic take permit. The marine mammal programmatic take permit covers a forecast of up to 30 space and missile launches per year at Vandenberg AFB (74 FR 6236-6244). The addition of two HTV-2 program launches within a year would not cause the forecast limit to be exceeded (refer to Section 4.3.1 for further discussions on this issue). As for other non-listed species at Vandenberg AFB, any terrestrial mammals or birds in proximity to a launch might suffer startle responses and flee the area for a short period of time. These effects, however, would be temporary and are not expected to affect local population levels. Because of the programmatic take permit measures already in place, and considering that only two HTV-2 program launches are planned, no significant impacts to pinnipeds or to other non-listed wildlife species on base are expected to occur as a result of launch noise. Launch Emissions and Plume Effects. The atmospheric deposition of launch emissions has the potential to acidify surface waters. The types and quantities of emissions products released from the Minotaur IV Lite booster are listed in Table 4-3. The principal combustion product of concern is HCl gas, which forms hydrochloric acid when combined with water. The acidification of surface waters in small drainages and in the wastewater retention ponds near SLC-8 could present harmful conditions for aquatic wildlife and nearby protected species. The bedrock and, by inference, the soils at Vandenberg AFB do not contain large amounts of acid-neutralizing minerals. The proximity of the proposed launch sites to the ocean combined with the prevailing onshore winds, however, causes the deposition of acid-neutralizing sea salt. The alkalinity derived from sea salt should neutralize the acid falling on soil, thus eliminating the potential for acid runoff. Surface water monitoring conducted for larger launch systems on Vandenberg’s South Base has not shown long-term acidification of surface waters (USAF, 2000). Launch Failure or Early Flight Termination. In the unlikely event of a failure during launch, or an early termination of flight, the launch vehicle would most likely fall into the ocean reasonably intact, along with some scattered debris. Fragments of unburned solid propellant, which is composed of ammonium perchlorate, aluminum, and other materials, could be widely dispersed. Of particular concern is the ammonium perchlorate in the solid propellant resin binding-agent. Once the propellant enters the water, the ammonium perchlorate could slowly leach out and create toxic conditions for plants and animals. Laboratory studies, however, have shown that in freshwater at 68° F (20° C), the leaching of all perchlorate from solid propellant fragments can take many years, depending on the fragment weight (Lang et al., 2003). In lower water temperatures and/or in more saline (ocean) waters, perchlorate leaching rates become even slower (Lang et al., 2002).

62


A lesser hazard may also exist from small amounts of battery electrolyte carried on each launch vehicle. The risks from electrolytes are far smaller than for propellants because of smaller quantities and the use of more rugged containment systems for batteries (NASA, 2002). The probability of an aborted launch for a Minotaur IV Lite vehicle is very low. Historically, launch records indicate a 4 percent failure rate for similar Peacekeeper ICBM launch vehicles (SMC Det 12/RPD, 2006). Because of newer technologies and system innovations, the failure rate for a Minotaur IV Lite should be even less. If an early abort were to occur, then base actions would be taken immediately for the recovery and cleanup of unburned propellants and any other hazardous materials that had fallen on the beach, off the beach within 6 ft (1.8 m) of water, or in any freshwater creeks, retention ponds, and wetland areas. Recovery from deeper coastal waters would occur on a case-by-case basis. Because any solid propellants or flight batteries remaining in the offshore waters would be subject to constant wave action and currents, localized build-up of perchlorate concentrations or other contaminants is unlikely to occur. As a result, launch-related activities are not expected to have a significant impact on wildlife. Threatened and Endangered Species Those threatened and endangered species that could be potentially affected by the HTV-2 program launches at Vandenberg AFB are listed in Table 3-5 and discussed in the paragraphs that follow. Although other listed species occur on Vandenberg AFB, their remoteness from the launch sites makes it unlikely that they would be adversely affected. The only listed plant species that could be potentially affected are the Federally endangered Gaviota tarplant and the state-threatened surf thistle, both of which are located at least 0.8 mi (1.3 km) from the SLC-8 launch pad. At this distance, there is very little risk for plants to be affected by the solid rocket motor emissions, including HCl deposition. Immediately following launch, the emissions would be rapidly dispersed and diluted over a large area. Following their recent review, Vandenberg AFB biologists also concluded that the HTV-2 launches would have “no effect” on Gaviota tarplant (Evans, 2009). The Federally threatened California red-legged frog is commonly found in freshwater areas on base, including the wastewater retention ponds near SLC-8. Because the ponds are approximately 1,310 ft (400 m) from the SLC-8 launch area, the frogs could be exposed to high launch noise levels (around 129 dB ASEL [Do, 1994]) and some acidic exhaust products from the rocket motor. It is expected, however, that during a launch, the red-legged frogs would dive underwater, where they would be less susceptible to acoustic effects because the sound levels would be attenuated to some degree. Additionally, the constant deposition of wind-blown sea salt should eliminate the potential for water acidification. Giving support to these conclusions, previous monitoring studies conducted at the wastewater ponds for an Athena 2 launch from SLC-6 (located just north of SLC-8) showed no reduction in the number of red-legged frogs, no change in water pH levels, and no change in the acid neutralizing capacity of the water (USFWS, 1999). Following their recent review, Vandenberg AFB biologists concluded that the HTV-2 launches “may effect” red-legged frogs; however, the effects are permitted under the existing biological opinion issued earlier by the USFWS for SLC-8 (Evans, 2009). The biological opinion authorizes the incidental harassment of an unspecified number of the frogs as a result of rocket launches (USFWS, 1999). The sights and sounds of the Minotaur IV Lite launches and possible helicopter overflights could affect some of the threatened and endangered bird species found at Vandenberg AFB. Endangered California brown pelicans roost at several shoreline locations near SLC-8, the closest being Point Arguello and Rocky Point, each approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) away (see Figure 3-3). At this distance, the launch would

63


expose the brown pelicans to ASEL levels near 115 dB (USAF, 2006). Such sound levels and sight of the launch vehicle may cause a temporary startle and flush response in brown pelicans roosting in the vicinity. Monitoring studies conducted for a 2001 Atlas IIAS launch, however, showed no evidence of injury, mortality, or abnormal behavior in brown pelicans (SRS, 2001b). Similarly, for an earlier Delta II mission, no differences in brown pelican roosting patterns were observed in the days prior to launch as compared to after the launch (SRS, 2001a). To minimize potential impacts on seabirds from security helicopter overflights, the helicopters and other aircraft are required to maintain a minimum slant range of 1,000 ft (305 m) year round from shoreline areas between Point Pedernales and Oil Well Canyon just east of Rocky Point (VAFB, 2007a). Along Surf Beach, western snowy plovers forage year round and nest from early March through September within 3.9 mi (6.2 km) of the SLC-8 launch site. At this distance, the plovers would be subject to brief launch noise ASEL levels up to 93 dB (USAF, 2006). Launch noise and the flash of the rocket engine, especially at night, could cause a temporary startle and flush response in plovers. However, observations of flocks of snowy plovers during an Atlas IIAS launch from Vandenberg’s SLC-3 launch pad in 2001 showed no interruption of activities, or any evidence of abnormal behavior or injury (SRS, 2001b). In addition, the sights and sounds of Minotaur IV Lite launches would be less than that of the much larger Atlas V and Delta IV vehicles that are currently launched from South Vandenberg (USAF, 2000). As previously described, southern sea otter colonies are found in the offshore waters along the South Vandenberg coastline, within 2 mi (3.2 km) of SLC-8. At this distance, the animals could be exposed to surface launch noise just over 100 dB ASEL (USAF, 2006). Such events might cause the animals to suffer startle responses and retreat underwater temporarily. At such sound pressure levels, however, it is unlikely that the animals would experience any physiological effects, particularly when submerged. Monitoring of sea otters for an earlier Delta II launch showed no evidence of injury, mortality, mother-pup separation, or other abnormal behavior, even when exposed to launch noise ASEL levels of approximately 115 dB (SRS, 2001a). Any helicopter overflights near the otters could also startle the animals, but again, the effects would be temporary. Following their recent review, Vandenberg AFB biologists concluded that the HTV-2 launches “may effect” California brown pelicans, California snowy plovers, and Souther sea otters; however, the effects are permitted under the existing biological opinion issued earlier by the USFWS for SLC-8 (Evans, 2009). The biological opinion authorizes the incidental harassment of an unspecified number of these species as a result of rocket launches (USFWS, 1995). To minimize potential long-term impacts on red-legged frogs, brown pelicans, snowy plovers, and sea otters, monitoring requirements would be implemented for HTV-2 program launches at SLC-8 in accordance with the existing USFWS biological opinions listed below:

Biological Opinion for the California Spaceport, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California (USFWS, 1995)

Biological Opinion for the Spaceport Launch Program, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa

Barbara County, California (USFWS, 1999). In summary, the proposed HTV-2 program launches and operations may cause short-term effects on some Federal and state threatened or endangered species. These actions, however, are not likely to adversely affect the long-term well being or survival of any of these species, thus no significant impacts are expected. The measures and monitoring requirements already in place at Vandenberg AFB would be incorporated into HTV-2 program launch operations to minimize potential impacts on listed species.

64


Environmentally Sensitive Habitats Known habitat areas for the Gaviota tarplant and other protected plant species would not be adversely affected by normal launch operations from SLC-8. In the rare case of a launch anomaly where debris impacts near or within habitat areas, base biologists would assist in recovery operations by surveying the impact area to avoid or minimize damage to protected plant species. Emergency firefighting personnel and equipment would also be on standby status as a protective measure in case of brush fires. Western snowy plover nesting habitat is located along Surf Beach on South Vandenberg within 3.9 mi (6.2 km) of the SLC-8 launch pad (see Figure 3-3). Launch noise here could reach 93 dB ASEL, but the habitat area would not be adversely affected by launches. No launch debris would impact the area. Launches from SLC-8 would travel directly over the southern end of the Vandenberg SMR, resulting in noise levels ranging up to 110 dB ASEL over the near shore reserve waters (USAF, 2006). Such brief noise levels, however, are not expected to cause behavioral changes in the wildlife found in these waters. During a nominal flight, no launch debris would be expected to impact within the area. Per earlier discussions, rocket launch emissions would not impact the water quality of local surface waters. If a launch anomaly were to occur, then actions at Vandenberg AFB would be taken immediately for the recovery and cleanup of unburned propellants, and any other hazardous materials that had fallen on the ground or in any of the freshwater creeks, retention ponds, wetlands, and shoreline areas. Recovery operations in deeper coastal waters, however, would be treated on a case-by-case basis. As a result, no significant impacts to terrestrial/freshwater habitats, the Vandenberg SMR, or to local essential fish habitat areas would occur. 4.1.1.3.3 Post-Launch Operations The intermittent movement of trucks, cranes, and any clean-up/maintenance equipment would not produce substantial levels of noise, and vehicles would normally remain on paved or gravel areas. Thus, the limited actions associated with post-launch operations would have no significant impacts on local vegetation or wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, and other environmentally sensitive habitats. 4.1.1.4 Cultural Resources 4.1.1.4.1 Site Modifications, Rocket Motor Transportation, and Pre-Launch Preparations Archaeological Sites The HTV-2 program-related site modifications proposed at Vandenberg AFB would not require any excavation or other ground disturbance activities. The IRF (Building 1900) is the only building requiring modifications, and there are no known archaeological sites in the vicinity of the building. Proposed rocket motor off-loading activities would occur at the Rail Transfer Facility (Facility 1886), which is located near an archaeological site. Unauthorized artifact collection by program personnel has the potential to adversely affect nearby archaeological sites. Personnel would not be notified of the location of nearby sites unless the sites are to be specifically avoided by HTV-2 program activities. The base Environmental Office would brief personnel, as necessary, on the sensitivity of cultural resources, applicable Federal regulations, and the mitigation measures that might be required if sites are

65


inadvertently damaged or destroyed. Thus, no significant or other adverse impacts to archaeological sites are expected. The Minotaur IV Lite vehicle integration and launch site preparations represent routine types of activities at the base. In some situations, transportation activities could potentially harm subsurface resources when moving launch vehicle components and equipment to and from the launch pad and other facilities. So as not to risk disturbing archaeological sites, transport vehicles, cranes, and other load-handling equipment would remain on paved or gravel areas (no off-road travel). Historic Buildings and Structures Two facilities that would potentially be used for the HTV-2 program have been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP for their Cold War, ICBM Program historic context: the IRF (Building 1900) and the Rail Transfer Facility (Facility 1886). Of these, only the IRF would be modified in support of HTV-2 activities. The modifications to the IRF would include installation of lightning protection, adding fall protection to the roof, and changing the ordnance grounding points. All of these modifications are routine upgrades that are allowable under the existing Cold War Programmatic Agreement between Vandenberg AFB and the California SHPO (VAFB, 2002), and they do not affect the historic fabric of the IRF. Additionally, the IRF was included in HAER documentation related to the beddown of the GMD system (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2003) at Vandenberg AFB. The completed HAER could be considered mitigation for these minor upgrades as well. The existing HAER, and reuse of the building for HTV-2 activities that are similar to its original Peacekeeper mission, would further mitigate any impacts from the proposed modifications. Thus, no significant impacts to the IRF or any other historic structures are expected. 4.1.1.4.2 Launch Activities No ground disturbance or other facility modifications would occur during flight activities. Thus, no significant or other adverse impacts to archaeological sites or historic buildings/structures are expected from nominal flight activities. Falling debris from a flight termination or other launch anomaly, however, could strike areas on the ground where surface or subsurface archaeological deposits or other cultural resources are located. Such an impact could result in soil contamination, fire, and/or resource damage—all of which requires a reparation effort. Firefighting activities could damage subsurface historic and prehistoric archaeological sites as well. In the unlikely event that a mishap occurs, post-mishap recommendations would include post-event surveying, mapping, photography, and site recordation to determine and record the extent of the damage. These efforts would be coordinated with applicable range representatives and the California SHPO to develop the most appropriate mitigation measures based on the nature of the mishap and the cultural resources involved. Any debris falling offshore would not pose a threat to cultural resources on base. 4.1.1.4.3 Post-Launch Operations Because of the limited activities associated with post-launch operations, no ground disturbance or other facility modifications would occur. However, because HTV-2 program personnel would be on site during cleanup and site maintenance, the potential for unauthorized artifact collection still exists. Personnel would be reminded of the sensitivity of cultural resources and the mitigation measures that might be required if sites are inadvertently damaged or destroyed. Thus, no significant or other adverse impacts to archaeological sites or historic buildings/structures are expected to occur.

66


4.1.1.5 Health and Safety 4.1.1.5.1 Site Modifications, Rocket Motor Transportation, and Pre-Launch Preparations For the proposed facility modification activities at Vandenberg AFB, all program personnel would be required to comply with applicable AFOSH and OSHA regulations and standards. The launch vehicle integration and launch site preparations for the HTV-2 program represent routine types of activities at the base. All applicable Federal, state, and local health and safety requirements, such as OSHA regulations within 29 CFR, would be followed, as well as all appropriate DOD and USAF regulations. The handling of large rocket motors and other vehicle ordnance is a hazardous operation that requires special care and training of personnel. By adhering to the established and proven safety standards and procedures identified in Section 3.1.5 of this EA, the level of risk to base personnel and the general public would be minimal. The systems to be used for transportation of the Minotaur IV Lite rocket motors and related ordnance to Vandenberg AFB would provide environmental protection and physical security to the components. Heavily constructed trailers, carriages, and/or containers would be used to safely transport the motors. All transportation and handling requirements for the rocket motors and other ordnance would be accomplished in accordance with DOD, USAF, and DOT policies and regulations to safeguard the materials from fire or other mishap. As described in Section 3.1.5, accident rates for operations involving rocket motor transportation have been historically very low. Pre-launch ground tests of the telemetry and tracking systems used on the HTV-2 vehicle and Minotaur IV Lite booster would comply with AFOSH Standard 48-9 (Radio Frequency Radiation Safety Program) for limiting potential human exposure to non-ionizing (radio frequency) radiation. As a result, the proposed site modifications, pre-launch preparations, and rocket motor transportation requirements would not cause significant impacts on health and safety. 4.1.1.5.2 Launch Activities Adherence to the policies and procedures identified in Section 3.1.5 protects the health and safety of on-site personnel. During launches, public safety and health are ensured through the establishment of Launch Hazard Areas, impact debris corridors, beach and access road closures (as necessary), and the coordination and monitoring of train traffic passing through the base, in addition to the NOTMARs and NOTAMs published for mariners and pilots. In support of each mission, a safety analysis would be conducted prior to launch activities to identify and evaluate potential hazards and reduce the associated risks to a level acceptable to Range Safety. For each rocket launch from Vandenberg AFB, the allowable public risk limit for launch-related debris is extremely low, as the following RCC Standard 321-07 criteria show:

Individuals within the general public must not be exposed to a probability of casualty greater than 1 in 1,000,000 for any single mission. Collective risk for the general public (i.e., the combined risk to all individuals exposed to the hazard) must not exceed a casualty expectation of 1 in 10,000 for any single mission.

Non-mission ships will be restricted from near-shore hazard areas, where the probability of

impact of debris capable of causing a casualty exceeds 1 in 10,000 for non-mission ships.

67


Non-mission aircraft in near-shore areas will be restricted from hazard volumes of airspace, where the cumulative probability of impact of debris capable of causing a casualty on an aircraft exceeds 1 in 10,000,000 for all non-mission aircraft. (RCC, 2007)

For comparison purposes, the 2005 average annual probability of fatality in the US from non-transportation accidental (unintentional) injuries was 1 in 4,274 (National Safety Council, 2009). This probability record included falls, fire and burns, drowning, electrical shock, and poisoning. Thus, the risk of fatality to the public from HTV-2 program launches at Vandenberg AFB would be substantially less than the risk from non-transportation related accidents. Overall, no significant impacts on health and safety are expected. 4.1.1.5.3 Post-Launch Operations Post-launch maintenance and repairs at the SLC-8 launch pad are routine operations at Vandenberg AFB. All applicable Federal, state, and local health and safety requirements, such as OSHA regulations, would be followed, as well as all appropriate DOD and USAF regulations. By adhering to the established safety standards and procedures identified in Section 3.1.5, the level of risk to military personnel, contractors, and the general public would be minimal. Thus, no significant impacts on health and safety are expected. 4.1.1.6 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 4.1.1.6.1 Site Modifications, Rocket Motor Transportation, and Pre-Launch Preparations HTV-2 program related facility modifications and pre-launch preparations would not damage or interfere with existing IRP treatment and monitoring systems on base. Modifications to the IRF (Building 1900) are not expected to result in any asbestos or LBP wastes. If removal of asbestos and/or LBP was required, such hazardous wastes would require containerizing and proper disposal at the base landfill or at other permitted facilities located off base. The launch vehicle integration and launch site preparations represent routine types of activities at the base. During pre-launch preparations, small quantities of lubricants, paints, sealants, and solvents (less than 10 lb [4.5 kg] per flight test vehicle) would be used. All hazardous materials and associated wastes would be responsibly managed in accordance with the well-established policies and procedures identified in Section 3.1.6. As an example, key elements in the management of hazardous liquids would include material compatibility, security, leak detection and monitoring, spill control, personnel training, and specific spill-prevention mechanisms. Whenever possible, HTV-2 related operations at Vandenberg AFB would use environmentally preferred and/or recyclable materials. All hazardous and non-hazardous wastes would be properly disposed of in accordance with applicable Federal, state, local, DOD, and USAF regulations. Hazardous material and waste-handling capacities would not be exceeded, and management programs would not have to change. Thus, no significant impacts from hazardous materials and waste management would occur. 4.1.1.6.2 Launch Activities Flight activities would not normally release hazardous materials or generate hazardous waste. In general, IRP studies at Vandenberg AFB have not shown any long-term concerns for contamination to soils and groundwater from repeated launches of similar solid-propellant systems (USAF, 2006). If an early launch abort were to occur, base actions would be taken immediately to recover unburned solid propellants and any other hazardous materials that had fallen on the beach, off the beach within 6 ft

68


(1.8 m) of water, or in any of the nearby freshwater creeks. Recovery from deeper water along the shoreline would be treated on a case-by-case basis. Collected waste materials would be properly disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. Consequently, no significant impacts from the management of hazardous materials and waste are expected. 4.1.1.6.3 Post-Launch Operations Post-launch maintenance and repairs at the SLC-8 launch pad are routine operations at Vandenberg AFB. During this process, all hazardous materials would be responsibly managed in accordance with the well-established policies and procedures identified in Section 3.1.6. Hazardous and non-hazardous wastes would be properly disposed of in accordance with applicable Federal, state, local, DOD, and USAF regulations. This requirement would include any stormwater buildup in the SLC-8 flame duct catchment basin. The stormwater would be sampled for contaminants and, depending on the results, the water would be discharged to grade or sent to the base industrial wastewater treatment plant. Hazardous material and waste-handling capacities on base would not be exceeded, and management programs would not have to change. As a result, no significant impacts from the management of hazardous materials and waste would occur. 4.1.2 OVER-OCEAN FLIGHT CORRIDOR AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT 4.1.2.1 Global Atmosphere 4.1.2.1.1 Stratospheric Ozone Layer Exhaust emissions from the rocket motors contain both Cl and Cl compounds, produced primarily as HCl at the nozzle. Two Minotaur IV Lite launches would release approximately 0.27 tons of Cl and 33 tons of HCl (see Table 4-3). The Cl and HCl would have a long enough tropospheric lifetime to eventually mix with the stratosphere, even when released at ground level. The global release of emissions from rocket launches, however, is small enough that it is not listed as a significant source of ozone depleting substances by the WMO (2006). It is also estimated that the emission loads of chlorine (as HCl and free Cl) from rocket launches worldwide, as projected from 2004 to 2014, would account for only 0.5 percent of the industrial Cl load from the US over the 10-year period (MDA, 2007a). Both Al2O3 and NOx are also of concern with respect to stratospheric ozone depletion. Two launches would release approximately 60 tons of Al2O3. The Al2O3 is emitted as solid particles and can activate Cl in the atmosphere. The exact magnitude of ozone depletion that can result from a buildup of Al2O3 over time has not yet been determined quantitatively, but is considered insignificant based on existing analyses (USAF, 2001). Following each launch, the majority of this compound would be removed from the stratosphere through dry deposition and precipitation. NOx, like certain Cl compounds, also contributes to catalytic gas phase ozone depletion. The production of NOx species from solid rocket motors is dominated by high-temperature “afterburning” reactions in the exhaust plume. As the temperature of the exhaust decreases with increasing altitude, less NOx is formed. Because diffusion and winds would disperse the NOx species generated, no significant effect on ozone levels is expected. In summary, rocket emissions from the two proposed HTV-2 flight tests would not have a significant impact on stratospheric ozone depletion; however, any emission of ozone-depleting substances represents an incremental increase that could have incremental effects on the global atmosphere.

69


4.1.2.1.2 Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Under the Proposed Action, all combined HTV-2 activities at Vandenberg AFB and from launches would release approximately 304 tons (276 metric tons) of CO2. Detailed emission calculations of GHGs from facility modifications and pre-launch preparations (including local rocket motor transportation), launch, and post-launch activities at Vandenberg AFB are provided in Appendix D. A small number of support ocean vessels, aircraft, and other equipment would be used at USAKA/RTS and around the Marshall Islands to support HTV-2 terminal phase preparations and operations. Although the full extent of their use has not yet been determined, it is expected to be limited and temporary. In addition, the availability of GHG emission factors for vessels and some aircraft is limited. For these reasons, GHG emissions from such sources were not quantified in this analysis. The amount of emissions that would be released, however, is assumed to be negligible. CO2 is the only GHG identified in the Kyoto Protocol or the California Climate Action Registry that would be emitted during launch of the Minotaur IV Lite booster. Because of the solid propellant used, two launches would release only 4 tons (3.6 metric tons) of CO2. For comparison, the CO2 emissions from all USAF launch vehicles (e.g., Atlas, Delta, Titan, and Minuteman) in CY 2005 represents the emissions of 130 passenger cars operated that year (DeSain and Brady, 2007). The amount of CO2 released by all HTV-2 program activities is expected to be less than 0.0001 percent of the anthropogenic emissions for this gas released on a global scale annually (USEPA, 2007b). Although this limited amount of emissions would not contribute significantly to global warming, any emission of GHG represents an incremental increase that could have incremental effects on the global atmosphere. 4.1.2.2 Biological Resources The proposed HTV-2 flight tests would not have a discernible or measurable impact on benthic or planktonic organisms, because of their abundance, their wide distribution, and the protective influence of the mass of the ocean around them. However, the potential exists for impacts to larger vertebrates in the nekton, particularly those that must come to the surface to breathe (e.g., marine mammals and sea turtles). Potential impacts on these protected species have been considered in this analysis and include the effects of sonic booms produced by flight vehicles, the effects of splash-down of launch vehicle stages, and release of propellants or other contaminants into the water. These issues are discussed further in the following sections. 4.1.2.2.1 Sonic Boom Overpressures Open-Ocean Environments As described in Section 4.1.1.2.2, launch of the Minotaur IV Lite booster from Vandenberg AFB would generate a sonic boom off the CA Coast in open-ocean areas. The propagation of sonic booms underwater could affect the behavior and hearing sensitivity in marine mammals (primarily cetaceans), sea turtles, and other fauna. If the sounds were loud enough, then they might cause animals to quickly react, briefly altering their normal behavior. Higher sound levels can impede a marine mammal’s ability to hear even after the exposure has ended, temporarily raising the threshold at which the animal can hear. Depending on the level of exposure, this threshold shift in hearing may be temporary (referred to as temporary threshold shift [TTS]) or permanent (referred to as permanent threshold shift [PTS]). TTS can temporarily impair an animal’s ability to communicate, navigate, forage, and detect predators. The onset of TTS in marine mammals depends on the total exposure to sound energy, a function of sound pressure level and duration of exposure. As a sound gets louder, the duration required to induce TTS gets shorter.

70


Exposure to sound in excess of that required to cause TTS may result in a PTS. (National Research Council, 2005) Although sonic boom data for the Minotaur IV Lite booster is unavailable, prior studies of similar ICBM flight test vehicles launched from Vandenberg AFB have shown that maximum sonic boom overpressures would occur at distances of about 25 nmi (46 km) off the coast and last no more than 250 milliseconds or a quarter of a second (USAF, 2004). The surface footprint of the sonic boom can extend outward many miles on each side of the flight path, but it quickly dissipates with increasing distance. Using Atlas V sonic boom data (USAF, 2000) as a conservative estimate for the Minotaur IV Lite, the upper range of sonic boom overpressures generated by HTV-2 program launches would be 7.2 psf at the water’s surface. This overpressure is equivalent to 145 dB (re 20 µPa) in air and 171 dB (re 1 µPa) in water at the air-to-water interface. The overpressure (sound levels) would dissipate with increasing distance and ocean depth. Following HTV-2 separation from the booster, the test vehicle would also produce sonic booms during its hypersonic glide towards USAKA/RTS. Along its flight path, the vehicle would generate a moving sonic boom or carpet boom. The width of the boom “carpet” beneath the vehicle would be a little over 100 nmi (185 km). The carpet boom overpressures, however, would not be uniform. The maximum peak overpressure at ocean level would be around 0.21 psf directly beneath the vehicle, but then decrease laterally away from the flight path until the boom effects cease altogether. This overpressure would be equivalent to 114 dB (re 20 µPa) in air and 140 dB (re 1 µPa) in water at the air-to-water interface. Within the areas of the NWHI and Wake Island, the overpressures likely would not exceed 111 dB (re 20 µPa) in air and 137 dB (re to 1 µPa) underwater. Just as mentioned before, the overpressure (sound levels) would dissipate with increasing distance and ocean depth. A description of the methodology used to estimate the HTV-2 vehicle sonic boom overpressures is provided in Appendix E. In response to consultations initiated by the USAF, the NMFS determined that the Minotaur IV Lite sonic boom impulsive sounds and resulting underwater overpressures (up to approximately 171 dB [re 1 µPa]) would exceed TTS thresholds for cetaceans (see Appendix A, page A-7). The HTV-2 vehicle carpet boom underwater effects (up to approximately 140 dB [re 1 µPa]) would not exceed such thresholds. These effects, however, would generate minimal in-water sonic boom footprints where adverse levels of sound may be encountered and the potential exposure would last for only a quarter second per flight test event at any given location along the flight path. Based on the limited area and duration of potential exposure to adverse sound levels, and the belief that ESA-listed marine species densities along the projected flight paths are low and patchy in distribution, the NMFS considered the potential acoustical effects to be discountable. The DARPA and USAF assume similar findings for other marine mammal species as well. Sea turtle auditory sensitivity is not well studied; however, research suggests that the animals are less sensitive to the auditory effects of impulsive sounds than marine mammals (Ridgeway et al., 1969; USN, 2008a, 2008b). As noted in the NMFS letter (Appendix A, page A-7), the cetacean thresholds for TTS and PTS are likely to be particularly conservative for sea turtles. Thus, the Minotaur IV Lite sonic boom and HTV-2 carpet boom underwater acoustical effects on sea turtles can also be considered negligible. Thus, the sonic booms generated along the over-ocean flight corridor are not expected to have a significant impact on marine mammals or sea turtles. Terrestrial (Atoll/Island) Environments During the Mission A flight test, the HTV-2 vehicle would pass directly over the NWHI and the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the area of Maro Reef, Gardner Pinnacles, Brooks

71


Banks, and French Frigate Shoals. The resulting sonic boom carpet in this area would not be expected to exceed 0.15 psf (111 dB [re 20 µPa] in air). For the Mission B flight test, similar carpet boom overpressures might occur over Wake Island in the mid-Pacific. In comparison, these noise levels would be less than the 0.42 psf (120 dB [re 20 µPa] in air) overpressure produced by a thunderclap at close range (Vavrek et al., 2008). Because the carpet boom overpressures would occur only once at each location and last no more than a few hundred milliseconds, no significant impacts are expected to either terrestrial or marine species in these areas. Refer to Appendix E for information on the methodology used for estimating the HTV-2 vehicle sonic boom overpressures. 4.1.2.2.2 Direct Contact and Shock/Sound Wave from the Splashdown of Vehicle Components As shown in Figure 2-4, the three Minotaur IV Lite spent rocket motors would impact in deep ocean waters, well away from coastal areas. The payload fairing would also impact in the same general area as the stage-3 motor. During their descents, each motor would hit the ocean surface at speeds of approximately 195 to 230 ft per second (59 to 79 m per second) (USAF, 2006). The expended motors—each weighing up to 9,431 lb (4,278 kg)—would have considerable kinetic force. Upon impact, this transfer of energy to the ocean water would cause a shock wave (low-frequency acoustic pulse) similar to that produced by explosives. If a portion of the launch vehicle were to strike a protected marine mammal or sea turtle near the water surface, the animal would most likely be killed. In addition, the resulting underwater shock/sound wave radiating out from the impact point could potentially harm other animals. Close to the impact point, the shock/sound wave might cause PTS, injure internal organs and tissues, or prove fatal to the animals. Slightly further away, TTS effects might occur, but with increasing distance away from the impact point, pressure levels would decrease, as would the risk for injury. Figure 4-2 illustrates the relative distances for these shock/sound wave effects on animals. Research shows that an underwater sound level of approximately 240 dB (re 1 µPa) is the baseline criterion for defining unavoidable injury or death in marine mammals (Ketten, 1998). Such effects would occur within several feet or yards of each rocket motor impact point. For TTS and PTS effects on marine mammals and sea turtles, this EA used a dual-exposure criteria approach based on recent studies

Onset of PTS Onset of TTS

Decreasing Pressure

Unavoidable Impact Point Injury/Death

Figure 4-2. Illustration of the Relative Underwater Radial Distances for Shock/Sound Wave Effects on Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles

72


conducted by the US Department of the Navy (USN) for underwater detonations and ship-shock trials (USN, 2008a, 2008b). The criteria use both peak pressure levels in dB (re 1 μPa) and energy flux density values, which are a measure of the sound energy flow per unit area expressed in dB (re 1 μPa2-s) for underwater sound. Table 4-4 presents the estimated radial distances for the onset of TTS and PTS for each booster component based on the USN criteria.

Table 4-4. Estimated Underwater Radial Distances for the Onset of TTS and PTS in Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles from Minotaur IV Lite Component Impacts in the Ocean

Radial Distance from Impact Point ft (m)

Potential Effect

Criterion Criterion Source

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Fairing 230 dB (re 1 μPa)

peak pressure USN, 2008b

4 (1.2)

4 (1.2)

2 (0.6)

1 (0.3)

PTS 205 dB (re 1 μPa2-s) energy flux density

USN, 2008a 28

(8.5) 23

(7.0) 12

(3.7) 5

(1.5)

224 dB (re 1 μPa) 1

peak pressure USN, 2008a, 2008b

9 (2.7)

7 (2.1)

4 (1.2)

2 (0.6)

TTS 182 dB (re 1 μPa2-s) energy flux density USN, 2008a

392 (119.5)

323 (98.5)

171 (52.1)

70 (21.3)

Notes: 1 A peak pressure of 224 dB (re 1 μPa) is equivalent to 23 psi.

As Table 4-4 shows, the energy flux density criteria result in much larger radial distances for the onset of PTS and TTS, when compared to the peak pressure criteria results. In response to consultations initiated by the USAF, the NMFS determined that the Minotaur IV Lite component impacts are discountable because of broad distances (up to several hundred miles) between impact points and the expected low density of ESA-listed species across the open ocean (see Appendix A, page A-7). The DARPA and USAF assume similar findings for other marine mammal species as well. As a result, the splashdown of Minotaur IV Lite components in the over-ocean flight corridor is not expected to have a significant impact on marine mammals or sea turtles. 4.1.2.2.3 Contamination of Seawater By the time the spent rocket motors impact in the ocean, all of the solid propellants in them would be consumed. The residual aluminum oxide and burnt hydrocarbon coating the inside of the motor casings would not present any toxicity concerns. Although the nickel-cadmium batteries carried onboard the launch vehicle would be spent (discharged) by the time they impact in the ocean, small quantities of electrolyte material would remain in the batteries. The battery materials, along with several gallons of hydraulic fluid from each motor’s TVC system, could mix with the seawater causing localized contamination. The release of such contaminants could potentially harm marine life that comes in contact with, or ingests, toxic levels of these solutions. Previous studies of missile tests concluded that the release of hazardous materials carried onboard rocket systems would not be significant (USN, 2008a). Materials would be rapidly diluted in the seawater and, except for the immediate vicinity of the debris, would not be found at concentrations identified as

73


producing adverse effects. Ocean depths in the ROI reach thousands of feet and, consequently, any impacts from hazardous materials are expected to be insignificant. The area affected by the dissolution of hazardous materials onboard would be relatively small because of the size of the rocket components and the minimal amount of residual materials they contain. Such components would immediately sink to the ocean bottom, out of reach of marine mammals, sea turtles, and most other marine life. It is possible for deep-ocean, benthic species to be adversely affected by any remaining contaminants, but such impacts would be localized to within a short distance of rocket debris deposited on the ocean floor. 4.1.2.2.4 Failed or Terminated Launch In the unlikely event of a system failure during launch or an early termination of flight, the launch vehicle would fall to the ocean intact or as debris scattered over a large area. It is expected that the falling debris would not have a significant impact on biological resources because of the large ocean area and the very low probability of striking a marine mammal or sea turtle. Initiating flight termination after launch would split or vent the solid propellant motor casing, releasing pressure. Pieces of unburned propellant, which is composed of ammonium perchlorate, aluminum, and other materials, could be dispersed over an ocean area of up to several square miles. Of particular concern is the ammonium perchlorate, which can slowly leach out of the solid propellant resin binding-agent once the propellant enters the water. However, as described in Section 4.1.1.3.2, it is unlikely that perchlorate concentrations would accumulate to a level of concern. The overall concentration and toxicity of dissolved solid propellant from the unexpended rocket motors, or portions of them, is expected to be negligible and without any substantial effect. Any propellant fragments expelled from a destroyed or exploded rocket motor would sink hundreds or thousands of feet to the ocean floor. At such depths, the material would be beyond the reach of most marine life. 4.1.3 US ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL/RONALD REAGAN BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST SITE

AND THE MARSHALL ISLANDS 4.1.3.1 Noise 4.1.3.1.1 Pre-Test Preparations and Support Vessel operations and other pre-test preparation activities in the Marshall Islands are not expected to have any noise impacts on local RMI communities. 4.1.3.1.2 Terminal Flight and Impact Activities Terminal flight of the HTV-2 over the Marshall Islands would create a sonic boom carpet along its flight path, similar to that described in Section 4.1.2.2.1 for the over-ocean flight corridor. Because of the vehicle’s high altitude (approximately 100,000 ft [30,480 m]), resulting sonic boom overpressures at sea level would be relatively low, ranging from about 0.12 to 0.21 psf (109 to 114 dB [re 20 µPa] in air). Because communities on Rongelap and Utirik Atolls would not be directly under the HTV-2 flight paths (see Figure 2-5), the sonic booms at these locations are expected to be around 0.12 psf (109 dB [re 20 µPa] in air). Such noise levels would be less than the 120 dB produced by a thunderclap at close range (Vavrek et al., 2008) and well within the OSHA standard of 140 dB (peak sound pressure level) for impulse noise (29 CFR 1910.95). The carpet boom would be audible only once at each location and last no more than a few hundred milliseconds. Upon reaching the BOA north of USAKA/RTS, each HTV-2 vehicle would maneuver towards a pre-designated impact area in the ocean. During vehicle descent, a focused sonic boom would occur over a

74


wide area of the BOA. A representative focused boom footprint is shown in Figure 4-3. Sonic boom overpressures at ocean level would range from about 0.06 psf (103 dB [re 20 µPa] in air) along the outer edges of the footprint to approximately 26 psf (156 dB [re 20 µPa] in air) near the point of ocean impact. As Figure 4-3 shows, the focused boom footprint would not affect land areas. During the flight tests, personnel on mission support vessels in the vicinity of the impact area would comply with the applicable Army regulations for hearing conservation. Depending on vessel location, on-board personnel may be required to wear hearing protection. Refer to Appendix E for information on the methodology used for estimating the HTV-2 sonic boom overpressures.

RONGELAP ATOLL UTIRIK ATOLL RONGERIK

ATOLL

TAKA ATOLL

Flight Path AILUK ATOLL Sonic Boom Footprint

JEMO ISLAND

LIKIEP ATOLL

USAKA/RTS Overpressure (psf) 0.06 5.0

0.6 13.3

1.5 20.8

Source: Modified from SMC, 2008 Figure 4-3. Representative Sonic Boom Footprint from HTV-2 Impact in the Broad Ocean Area As a result, the sonic booms generated by the HTV-2 vehicle in the Marshall Islands are not expected to have a significant impact on the human environment. 4.1.3.1.3 Post-Test Operations Noise from vessel operations would be similar to that of pre-test preparations. No noise impacts to local RMI communities are expected.

75


4.1.3.2 Biological Resources 4.1.3.2.1 Pre-Test Preparations and Support In the BOA where the proposed HTV-2 impacts would occur, it is expected that sea turtles, whales, and other marine species occasionally pass through this deep ocean area during migrations or when moving to different feeding areas. Depending on HTV-2 mission requirements, one or two vessels would deploy up to approximately 16 free-floating rafts (with optical and/or acoustical sensors and telemetry equipment onboard) in this area prior to the flight test. These and other vessels may remain positioned in the vicinity of the BOA impact area just prior to testing. During travel to and from impact and test support areas, ship personnel would monitor for marine mammals and sea turtles to avoid potential ship strikes. Vessel operators would also adjust their speed based on expected animal densities, and on lighting and turbidity conditions. The noise produced by the vessels might cause marine mammals and sea turtles to temporarily leave the area; however, these effects would be short-term and minimal. Vessel operations would not involve any intentional ocean discharges of fuel, toxic wastes, or plastics and other solid wastes that could potentially harm marine life. Thus, pre-test preparations would not have significant impacts on marine mammals or sea turtles. If ship personnel observe marine mammals during deployment of the free-floating sensors in the BOA impact area, then they would report such sightings to the USAKA Environmental Management Office, the RTS Range Directorate, and the Flight Test Operations Director at Vandenberg AFB for incorporation into the launch prerequisite list for consideration in approving the HTV-2 program launch. USAKA/RTS aircraft pilots operating in the vicinity of the impact and test support areas near Roi-Namur Island would also report any opportunistic sightings of marine mammals. 4.1.3.2.2 Terminal Flight and Impact Activities Terrestrial (Atoll/Island) Environments As described in Section 4.1.3.1.2, the HTV-2 vehicle would create a sonic boom carpet along its flight path over the Marshall Islands, prior to maneuvering towards the BOA impact area. The carpet boom overpressures would be relatively low, ranging from about 0.12 to 0.21 psf (109 to 114 dB [re 20 µPa] in air). For the Mission A flight path, the carpet boom would likely be audible on Bikar, Taka, and Utirik Atolls. For Mission B, the carpet boom would likely be audible on Rongelap and Rongerik Atolls. In comparison, the noise levels would be less than the 0.42 psf (120 dB [re 20 µPa] in air) overpressure produced by a thunderclap at close range (Vavrek et al., 2008). Because the carpet boom overpressures would occur only once at each location and last no more than a few hundred milliseconds, no significant impacts are expected to either terrestrial or marine species in these areas. Broad Ocean Area Environment Sonic Boom Overpressures. Within the Marshall Islands, the HTV-2 carpet boom maximum peak overpressure is expected to be around 0.21 psf at sea level. This peak overpressure would be equivalent to 140 dB (re 1 µPa) in water at the air-to-water interface. Just as described in Section 4.1.2.2.1 for the HTV-2 over-ocean flight corridor, the carpet boom effects within the BOA north of USAKA/RTS and in other ocean areas of the Marshall Islands would have a negligible effect on marine mammals and sea turtles because: (1) the overpressures would generate minimal in-water footprints and be very short in duration; (2) underwater sound levels would not exceed NMFS thresholds for TTS or PTS; and (3) marine mammal and sea turtle species are believed to have low and patchy densities within the ROI.

76


As stated in Section 4.1.3.1.2, the HTV-2 vehicle would also create a focused boom as it maneuvers and descends towards a pre-designated impact area in the BOA. Predicted overpressures at ocean level would range from about 0.06 psf along the outer edges of the sonic boom footprint to approximately 26 psf near the point of ocean impact (see Figure 4-3). For such overpressures, the equivalent underwater sound level at the air-to-water interface would range from a low of about 129 dB (re 1 µPa) to a maximum of approximately 182 dB (re 1 µPa). Such underwater sound levels would be 6 dB higher than the maximum 176 dB (re 1 µPa) estimated for focused booms from ongoing ICBM hypersonic vehicle tests at USAKA/RTS (USAF, 2004). In response to consultations initiated by the USAF, the NMFS determined that the HTV-2 vehicle’s focused boom would exceed TTS and PTS thresholds for cetaceans (see Appendix A, page A-7). These effects, however, would generate minimal in-water sonic boom footprints in the BOA and the potential exposure would last for only a fraction of a second per flight test event. Based on the limited area and duration of potential exposure to adverse sound levels, and the belief that ESA-listed marine mammal and sea turtle species densities in the BOA are low and patchy in distribution, the NMFS considered the potential acoustical effects to be discountable. The DARPA and USAF assume similar findings for other marine mammal species as well. Thus, the sonic booms generated by the HTV-2 vehicle are not expected to have a significant impact on marine mammals or sea turtles. Direct Contact and Shock/Wave from the Splashdown of Vehicle Components. An HTV-2 test vehicle impacting in the BOA would result in underwater shock/sound waves comparable to the splashdown of the rocket motors described in Section 4.1.2.2.2, but with much greater force because of the vehicle’s hypersonic velocity at the time of impact. Such shock/sound waves produce impulse or impact types of underwater noise similar to that of explosives. Any marine mammals or sea turtles within several yards of the point of vehicle impact would most likely be killed. As the shock/sound wave radiates away from the impact point, sound levels would decrease, as would the risk for injury or auditory effects (see Figure 4-2). Using the dual-exposure criteria (peak pressure and energy flux density) approach described in Section 4.1.2.2.2, Table 4-5 presents the estimated radial distances for the onset of TTS and PTS from the HTV-2 vehicle point of ocean impact.

Table 4-5. Estimated Underwater Radial Distances for the Onset of TTS and PTS in Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles from HTV-2 Vehicle Ocean Impacts

Potential Effect Criterion Criterion Source Radial Distance from

Impact Point ft (m)

230 dB (re 1 μPa) peak pressure

USN, 2008b 31 (9.4) PTS

205 dB (re 1 μPa2-s) energy flux density

USN, 2008a 190 (57.9)

224 dB (re 1 μPa) 1

peak pressure USN, 2008a, 2008b 61 (18.6)

TTS 182 dB (re 1 μPa2-s) energy flux density

USN, 2008a 2,690 (819.9)

Notes: 1 A peak pressure of 224 dB (re 1 μPa) is equivalent to 23 psi.

77


As Table 4-5 shows, the energy flux density criteria result in much larger radial distances for the onset of PTS and TTS, when compared to the peak pressure criteria results. In response to consultations initiated by the USAF, the NMFS determined that the HTV-2 vehicle impacts are discountable because there would be only two impact events and because of the expected low density of ESA-listed species within the BOA (see Appendix A, page A-7). The DARPA and USAF assume similar findings for other marine mammal species as well. The fact that no dead or injured whales or other marine mammals have been reported to USAKA/RTS officials over the years of ICBM vehicle testing demonstrates that the risk to animals is negligible (USAF, 2004). To help ensure that marine mammals are not impacted, ship personnel supporting pre-test preparations in the BOA impact area (see Section 4.1.3.2.1) would report any marine mammal sightings to the USAKA Environmental Management Office, the RTS Range Directorate, and the Flight Test Operations Director at Vandenberg AFB for incorporation into the launch prerequisite list for consideration in approving the HTV-2 program launch. USAKA/RTS aircraft pilots operating in the vicinity of the impact and test support areas near Roi-Namur Island would also report any opportunistic sightings of marine mammals. As a result, splashdown of the HTV-2 vehicle in the BOA is not expected to have a significant impact on marine mammals or sea turtles. Contamination of Seawater. As described in Section 2.1.1.2, the HTV-2 vehicle would contain some hazardous materials, consisting of small quantities of toxic metals, batteries, and small explosive devices used during flight. Upon ocean impact, the vehicle would likely break up. No floating debris is expected and all hazardous materials would sink thousands of feet to the ocean floor, out of reach of marine mammals, sea turtles, and most other marine life. Should any battery electrolyte materials be released into the water, they would rapidly dilute in the seawater. As a result, no significant impacts are expected. 4.1.3.2.3 Post-Test Operations Ocean travel and the recovery of free-floating sensors from the BOA would be conducted in a similar manner as during their initial deployment (see Section 4.1.3.2.1). Vessel operations are not expected to have a significant impact on marine mammals and sea turtles. No floating debris from the HTV-2 ocean impacts is expected. If ship personnel were to find floating debris from the vehicle, it would be collected for proper disposal. Although unlikely, any dead or injured marine mammals or sea turtles sighted during sensor recovery operations would be reported to the USAKA Environmental Management Office, which would then inform the NMFS in Honolulu. USAKA/RTS aircraft pilots operating in the vicinity of the impact and test support areas near Roi-Namur Island would also report any opportunistic sightings of dead or injured mammals. If an accidental take were to occur as a result of the HTV-2 ocean impact, the DARPA and the USAF would consult with USAKA/RTS, USASMDC/ARSTRAT, and the NMFS in Honolulu to formulate a mitigation/action plan to be integrated into future flight test planning to reduce the risk of accidental takes. 4.1.3.3 Health and Safety 4.1.3.3.1 Pre-Test Preparations and Support HTV-2 test support preparations at USAKA/RTS would not introduce new types of activities or increase levels of risk to personnel. Use of existing tracking radars and sensors would continue in accordance with ongoing support activities. Prior analyses of the radars and sensors at USAKA/RTS determined that there

78


would be no significant impacts to workers and the public from non-ionizing (radio frequency) radiation because of operational safety procedures in place (USASSDC, 1993). For the deployment of mobile sensors in the BOA, vessels would only be used when weather and sea conditions were acceptable for safe travel. Sensor deployment operations would not involve the handling or use of hazardous materials, other than batteries and small quantities of diesel fuel and/or gasoline. Thus, pre-test preparations would not have a significant impact on health and safety. 4.1.3.3.2 Terminal Flight and Impact Activities Through the application of USAKA/RTS range safety requirements described in Section 3.3.3, test programs are conducted with minimal risk to military personnel, contractors, and the general public. For the two HTV-2 flight tests, safety personnel at both Vandenberg AFB and USAKA/RTS would closely coordinate development of risk analyses based upon the trajectory, probability for system failure, and the population density of islands near the flight path. Computer-monitored destruct lines, based on no-impact lines, are pre-programmed for the Flight Safety software to avoid any falling debris on inhabited areas, as per Space System Software Safety Engineering protocols and US range operation standards and practices. As Figure 2-5 shows, the representative terminal flight paths for both HTV-2 missions would avoid overflight of RMI communities on Rongelap and Utirik Atolls. The USAKA/RTS Safety Office would not allow the HTV-2 flight tests to proceed if the calculated risk exceeds the RCC 321-07 criteria, which requires that individuals within the general public not be exposed to a probability of casualty greater than 1 in 1,000,000 for any single mission. Preliminary analyses of the proposed flight tests by DARPA indicate an individual casualty risk level of approximately 1 in 1 billion within the RMI—well within the RCC standard. As described in Section 3.3.3, NOTMARs and NOTAMs would be issued prior to each flight test to warn mariners and pilots to avoid the BOA impact area. Only mission-essential vessels would be allowed in the vicinity of the impact area. Radar sweeps by USAKA/RTS land-based and sea-based sensors (e.g., US Army Great Bridge and USAV Worthy), in addition to visual surveys by ship personnel, would help to ensure that the impact area is clear of non-mission ships and aircraft prior to tests. As a result, HTV-2 terminal flight activities and ocean impact are not expected to have a significant impact on health and safety. 4.1.3.3.3 Post-Test Operations Activities for the recovery of mobile sensors in the BOA would be similar to those conducted during sensor deployment; thus, no significant impacts are expected. Vessels would only be used when weather and sea conditions were acceptable for safe travel. 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the HTV-2 flight tests would not be implemented at Vandenberg AFB, USAKA/RTS, or anywhere else in the Marshall Islands. As a result, there would be no HTV-2 related environmental impacts from facility modifications, launch activities, or terminal flight operations. Vandenberg AFB and USAKA/RTS would continue ongoing operations with environmental conditions expected to remain unchanged from that described for the Affected Environment in Chapter 3.0 of the EA.

79


4.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects are considered to be those resulting from the incremental effects of an action when considering past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of the agencies or parties involved. In other words, cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively potentially significant, impacts occurring over the duration of the Proposed Action and within the same geographical area. The following sections describe the potential for cumulative impacts to occur at Vandenberg AFB, at USAKA/RTS and elsewhere in the Marshall Islands, and within the global environment as a result of implementing the proposed HTV-2 flight tests. 4.3.1 VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE The proposed Minotaur IV Lite launches would be conducted in a manner similar to that of other launch systems in use at Vandenberg AFB. The expected launch rate forecast for Vandenberg AFB is presented in Table 4-6 for CY 2008 and 2009. Beyond CY 2009, similar launch rates are expected. For the HTV-2 program, only two Minotaur IV Lite launches would be conducted within the CY 2009 timeframe. Thus, the proposed HTV-2 program launches represent a 10.5 percent increase in the number of launches per year (on average) at Vandenberg AFB. Table 4-6. Launch Rate Forecast for Vandenberg AFB, CA

Calendar Year Launch System

2008 2009

Atlas V 1 1

Delta II 2 2

Delta IV 1 0

Falcon 0 2

Taurus 1 1

Minotaur 1 1

Minuteman 4 4

BMDS Programs 9 3

Pegasus 3 2

Current Launch Rate Totals 22 16

Source: Leventis, 2007; Naputi, 2007; USAF, 2006.

The potential for cumulative impacts to occur at Vandenberg AFB is discussed in the following paragraphs for each affected resource. Air Quality. Under the Proposed Action, minor temporary increase in air emissions would occur, primarily from site modifications, pre-launch, and launch activities. Additionally, other projects and activities would occur at Vandenberg AFB and within the region, resulting in some measurable amounts of air pollutants. The State of California and Santa Barbara County take into account the effects of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities during the development of their State Implementation Plan (as required by the Clean Air Act) and County Clean Air Plan. Estimated emissions generated by the Proposed Action would be below de minimis levels and conform completely to these plans.

80


Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action would not contribute to adverse cumulative air quality impacts. The proposed Minotaur IV Lite booster would generate fewer emissions than the larger spacelift systems (e.g., Atlas and Delta) in use at the base. In addition, HTV-2 program launches and other rocket launches represent short-term, discrete events that would occur at different times and at different locations across Vandenberg AFB. The emissions would not accumulate because winds quickly and effectively disperse them between launches. Consequently, no significant cumulative impacts to air quality are anticipated. Noise. While the HTV-2 program launches would occur from SLC-8, other launch programs would be conducted from multiple locations across the Vandenberg AFB. The Minotaur IV Lite launch vehicle would generate lower noise levels per launch, when compared to the larger spacelift systems in use (e.g., Atlas and Delta). Despite the increase in number of launch events, the noise generated by each HTV-2 program launch would be very brief, launches would occur only twice within a 1-year period, and they would not have a perceptible impact on cumulative noise metrics, such as the CNEL. Thus, implementation of the HTV-2 flight tests at Vandenberg AFB is not expected to result in any significant cumulative impacts on noise. Biological Resources. The proposed HTV-2 program would increase the number of rocket launches at Vandenberg AFB, resulting in an increase in launch noise and rocket emissions released. The HTV-2 and other program launches represent short-term, discrete events that would occur at different times and at different locations across the base. Through coordination and consultations with the USFWS and the NMFS, the USAF implemented various plans and measures to limit the extent and frequency of potential impacts on protected and sensitive species. In addition, monitoring of certain species during launches is conducted on a regular basis to ensure that no long-term or cumulative impacts occur. To address the short-term disturbance of threatened and endangered species from launches, the USFWS authorized the incidental harassment of certain terrestrial and freshwater species. For the harassment of marine mammals (pinnipeds), the NMFS granted a take permit for Vandenberg AFB that covers a forecast of up to 30 launches per year. As discussed earlier and shown in Table 4-6, the addition of two HTV-2 program launches would not cause the take permit forecast limit to be exceeded. Although the HTV-2 program actions would result in an increase in the number of short-term impact events at the range, no long-term cumulative effects on biological resources are anticipated. Consequently, no significant cumulative adverse effects on threatened and endangered species or sensitive habitats are expected to occur. Cultural Resources. Vandenberg AFB has an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan already in place for the long-term protection and management of cultural resources that occur on the base. In accordance with Federal and state regulations, and agreements with the California SHPO, Vandenberg AFB personnel also regularly coordinate and consult with the SHPO and Native American specialists prior to implementing new projects where historical, archaeological, or traditional resources could be affected. As part of normal procedures, workers are informed of the sensitivity of cultural resources and the mitigation measures that might be required if sites are inadvertently damaged or destroyed, and security forces regularly patrol the base to help prevent potential vandalism and looting of such resources. Because of the requirements and procedures already in place, and the limited potential for proposed HTV-2 program activities to affect cultural resources on base, implementation of the HTV-2 program at Vandenberg AFB is not expected to result in any significant cumulative impacts on these resources. Health and Safety. On Vandenberg AFB, all projects must comply with applicable standards, policies, and procedures for health and safety. All rocket launches and other hazardous operations are closely reviewed and analyzed to ensure that there are no unacceptable risks to the public, military personnel, and

81


contractors. Because implementation of the HTV-2 program would also comply with these same requirements, no significant cumulative impacts to health and safety are expected to occur. Hazardous Materials and Waste Management. Implementing the HTV-2 program at Vandenberg AFB would not introduce new hazardous materials and wastes, and only a small increase in wastes would be expected from the two proposed launches. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts from the management of hazardous materials and waste are anticipated. 4.3.2 OVER-OCEAN FLIGHT CORRIDOR AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT Global Atmosphere. On a global basis, the two HTV-2 program launches would release negligible quantities of HCl and Cl emissions. Solid rocket motors make a relatively small contribution to stratospheric ozone losses, which are dominated by the release of CFCs and Halons. As for effects on global warming, the overall HTV-2 program would release a small quantity of CO2 compared to anthropogenic releases worldwide. Currently, there are no standards to determine the significance of the cumulative impacts from these emissions. In the absence of any standards to the contrary, the amount of emissions associated with this project would not have a significant cumulative impact on stratospheric ozone depletion or on global warming. Biological Resources. Potential cumulative impacts on marine life in the open ocean could occur from the two additional HTV-2 program launches, over and above projected launches identified in Table 4-6. Although Minotaur IV Lite booster and HTV-2 vehicle sonic booms could affect the behavior and hearing of marine mammals and sea turtles, the noise levels would be very short in duration at any given location and they would affect open ocean areas believed to have low and patchy densities of protected species. The sonic booms over the NWHI and Wake Island also would be minimal in strength and would occur only once at each location. There would be a slight increase in the risk for spent booster motors to strike marine life in the open ocean, but again, protected marine mammal or sea turtle species are widely scattered and the probability for debris to strike an animal is very remote. The resulting shock/sound wave produced by the spent rocket motors as they impact the water could cause injury or death to animals close to the impact point and could lead to potential hearing loss in other animals nearby. However, the probability for such an occurrence is very low, considering the limited number of launches, the relatively low population distribution of animals in the open ocean, and the small size of the ocean areas affected by each launch. Thus, no significant cumulative impacts to terrestrial or marine life are anticipated. 4.3.3 US ARMY KWAJALEIN ATOLL/RONALD REAGAN BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TEST SITE

AND THE MARSHALL ISLANDS The proposed HTV-2 flight tests and impacts in the Marshall Islands would be conducted in a manner similar to that of the ongoing ICBM hypersonic vehicle tests conducted at USAKA/RTS (USAF, 2004). The two HTV-2 flight tests, however, would have minimal overlap with the ICBM tests in terms of ROI and potential for cumulative impacts. Discussions on each affected resource are provided in the following paragraphs. Noise. The resulting HTV-2 sonic booms (carpet booms) over Rongelap and Utirik Atolls would also affect the local RMI communities, but only once within each community. No other USAKA/RTS-related flight test have been identified that would produce additional sonic booms in these same areas. Thus, no significant cumulative noise impacts to the RMI communities on Rongelap and Utirik Atolls would occur.

82


Biological Resources. Deployment of vessels and free-floating sensors in the BOA would have minimal overlap with other USAKA/RTS-related operations within the ROI. Thus, no cumulative impacts to biological resources are expected. The HTV-2 vehicle carpet booms would occur only once at each location and they are expected to have minimal impacts on terrestrial and marine species. The focused booms in the BOA could affect the behavior and hearing of marine mammals and sea turtles; however, the noise levels would be very short in duration and they would affect open ocean areas believed to have low and patchy densities of protected species. The underwater shock/sound waves produced by the HTV-2 vehicle ocean impacts might cause brief startle responses in some animals; however, the probability for causing TTS, PTS, or other injuries can be considered discountable. Because only two HTV-2 flight tests are planned and they would not overlap with ongoing ICBM hypersonic vehicle tests, no significant cumulative impacts to biological resources would occur. Health and Safety. Safety standards are high at USAKA/RTS and would serve to keep range safety related risks within acceptable levels for both workers and the public. The proposed HTV-2 program activities would not occur at the same time as other flight test programs, such as the Minuteman-III ICBM flight tests. No other projects in the ROI have been identified that would have the potential for incremental, additive cumulative impacts to health and safety. Thus, no significant cumulative impacts on health and safety are expected. 4.4 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING

ACTIONS Throughout this EA, various environmental management controls and monitoring systems are described. Required by Federal, state, DOD, and agency-specific environmental and safety regulations, these measures are implemented through normal operating procedures. Although no significant or other major impacts are expected to result from implementation of the Proposed Action, some specific environmental management and monitoring actions have been identified to minimize the level of impacts that might occur at Vandenberg AFB and USAKA/RTS. These are summarized below and include the relevant sections of the EA where they are further described. Vandenberg AFB 1) Program-related vehicles and other support equipment would be tuned and maintained to minimize

engine exhaust emissions. (Section 4.1.1.1.1) 2) To minimize potential impacts on seal haul-outs and rookeries, and on seabirds, security helicopters

or other aircraft overflights would maintain a minimum slant range of 1,000 ft (305 m) year round from shoreline areas between Point Pedernales and Oil Well Canyon just east of Rocky Point. (Section 4.1.1.3.2)

3) To minimize potential impacts on marine mammal species (pinnipeds), particularly from launch

noise, launch operations at SLC-8 would comply with all acoustical and biological monitoring requirements, and other measures, identified in the NMFS programmatic take permit and current LOA. These requirements and measures would include:

a) Scheduling missions, whenever possible, to avoid launches during the harbor seal pupping

season (March 1 through June 30), unless constrained by factors including, but not limited to,

83


human safety, national security, or for a space vehicle launch trajectory necessary to meet mission objectives;

b) Conduct biological monitoring for all launches during the harbor seal pupping season in accordance with permit procedures, and report the results to the NMFS;

c) Conduct both acoustic and biological monitoring for all new space and missile launch vehicles during at least the first launch (including an existing vehicle from a new launch site), whether or not it occurs within the harbor seal pupping season. (Section 4.1.1.3.2)

4) To minimize potential long-term impacts on Federally threatened and endangered species at

Vandenberg AFB, monitoring requirements would be conducted for HTV-2 program launches in accordance with existing USFWS biological opinions prepared for SLC-8. (Section 4.1.1.3.2)

5) Personnel would not be notified of the location of nearby archaeological sites unless the sites are to

be specifically avoided by HTV-2 program activities. The base Environmental Office would brief personnel, as necessary, on the sensitivity of cultural resources, applicable Federal regulations, and the mitigation measures that might be required if sites are inadvertently damaged or destroyed. (Sections 4.1.1.4.1 and 4.1.1.4.3)

6) In the unlikely event that a flight termination or other launch anomaly were to impact land,

response efforts would be coordinated with applicable range representatives and the California SHPO to develop the most appropriate mitigation measures based on the nature of the mishap and the cultural resources involved. (Section 4.1.1.4.2)

7) Whenever possible, HTV-2 program operations at Vandenberg AFB would use environmentally

preferred and/or recyclable materials. (Section 4.1.1.6.1) USAKA/RTS 1) During the HTV-2 flight tests, personnel on mission support vessels in the vicinity of the BOA

impact area would comply with the applicable Army regulations for hearing conservation. Depending on vessel location, on-board personnel may be required to wear hearing protection. (Section 4.1.3.1.2)

2) During ocean travel to and from impact and test support areas, ship personnel would monitor for

marine mammals and sea turtles to avoid potential ship strikes. Vessel operators would also adjust their speed based on expected animal densities, and on lighting and turbidity conditions. (Section 4.1.3.2.1)

3) Vessel operations would not involve any intentional ocean discharges of fuel, toxic wastes, or

plastics and other solid wastes that could potentially harm marine life. (Section 4.1.3.2.1) 4) If ship personnel observe marine mammals during deployment of the free-floating sensors in the

BOA impact area, they would report such sightings to the USAKA Environmental Management Office, the RTS Range Directorate, and the Flight Test Operations Director at Vandenberg AFB for incorporation into the launch prerequisite list for consideration in approving the HTV-2 program launch. USAKA/RTS aircraft pilots operating in the vicinity of the impact and test support areas near Roi-Namur Island would also report any opportunistic sightings of marine mammals. (Sections 2.1.2.3.1 and 4.1.3.2.1)

84


5) Following each flight test, during recovery of free-floating sensors in the BOA, sightings of any dead or injured marine mammals or sea turtles would be reported to the USAKA Environmental Management Office, which would then inform the NMFS in Honolulu. USAKA/RTS aircraft pilots operating in the vicinity of the impact and test support areas near Roi-Namur Island would also report any opportunistic sightings of dead or injured mammals. If an accidental take were to occur as a result of the HTV-2 ocean impact, the DARPA and the USAF would consult with USAKA/RTS, USASMDC/ARSTRAT, and the NMFS in Honolulu to formulate a mitigation/action plan to be integrated into future flight test planning to reduce the risk of accidental takes. (Sections 2.1.2.3.3 and 4.1.3.2.3)

6) If any HTV-2 vehicle debris were found during vessel operations to remove free-floating sensors

from the BOA, then the debris would be collected for proper disposal. (Section 4.1.3.2.3) 7) For the deployment of mobile sensors in the BOA, vessels would only be used when weather and

sea conditions were acceptable for safe travel. (Sections 4.1.3.3.1 and 4.1.3.3.3)

85



86


5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES

67 FR 67968-68001. 2002. US Fish and Wildlife Service, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Eriodictyon capitatum (Lompoc yerba santa) and Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa (Gaviota tarplant).” Federal Register. November 7.

69 FR 5720-5728. 2004. National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, “Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Space Vehicle and Test Flight Activities from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), CA.” Federal Register. February 6.

71 FR 36443-36474. 2006. Presidential Proclamation 8031—Establishment of the Northwestern

Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. Federal Register. June 26. 73 FR 16436-16514. 2008. US Environmental Protection Agency, “National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for Ozone” (Final Rule). Federal Register. March 27. 74 FR 6236-6244. 2009. National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, “Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Space Vehicle and Test Flight Activities from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California.” Federal Register. February 6.

Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment. 2005. PROACT Fact Sheet on Global Warming.

URL: http://www.afcee.af.mil/resources/proact/factsheets/index.asp, accessed February 19, 2009. Air Force Space Command (AFSPC). 2004. Range Safety User Requirements, AFSPC Manual 91-710.

July 1. Air Force Times. 2008. “Overturned Missile Transport Cleared from Road.” August 12. URL:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/08/ap_minot_crash_081108/, accessed February 19, 2009.

Atta, A. 2008. Personal communication and information provided by 30 CES/CEVR, Vandenberg AFB,

CA. February 25. Bowles, A.E. 2000. Potential Impact of USAF atmospheric interceptor technology (ait) Launches from

the Kodiak Launch Complex, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Monitoring of Noise Levels During the Launch of ait-2, 15 September 1999. Prepared by Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute for USAF Space and Missile Systems Center. May 24.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009a. Facility Emissions Report – Vandenberg AFB. URL:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facdet.php?co_=42&ab_=SCC&facid_=201&dis_=SB&dbyr=2006&dd, accessed February 19.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009b. Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Green

House Gas Emissions. URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ghg2007/frofinoal.pdf, accessed February 19.

87

http://www.afcee.af.mil/resources/proact/factsheets/index.asp

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/08/ap_minot_crash_081108/

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facdet.php?co_=42&ab_=SCC&facid_=201&dis_=SB&dbyr=2006&dd

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facdet.php?co_=42&ab_=SCC&facid_=201&dis_=SB&dbyr=2006&dd

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ghg2007/frofinoal.pdf


California Coastal Commission (CCC). 1994. Letter from the CCC to Vandenberg AFB regarding “Commission Action on CC-42-94, Construction and Operation of a Commercial Spaceport on Vandenberg Air Force Base.” October 27.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. Marine Life Protection Act Initiative web site.

URL: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/, accessed February 19. Carucci, J. 2007. Comments and information provided by 30 CES/CEVPC, Vandenberg AFB, in support

of the NEPA analysis for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program. October 22. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2007. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural

Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, reprint 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. July 1.

DeSain, J.D., and B.B. Brady. 2007. Potential Impact of Space Launches Worldwide to Global Climate

Change. Aerospace Report No. TOR-2007 (8506)-55. Prepared by the Aerospace Corporation for the USAF Space and Missile Systems Center. May 1.

Do, T.T. 1994. Taurus Launch Sound Levels at Varying Distances from the Launch Pad. Aerospace

Report No. TOR-94(4566)-5. Prepared by The Aerospace Corporation under contract to the US Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. August.

Drumheller, N. 2007. “Worthy Supports US Navy Air Defense Test.” The Kwajalein Hourglass. April

21. URL: https://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/Hourglass/issues/07Issues/Hourglass04-21-07.pdf, accessed February 19, 2009.

Evans, R.M. 2009. Personal communication and information provided by 30 CES/CEVN. January 29. Fosberg, F.R. 1990. “A Review of the Natural History of the Marshall Islands.” National Museum of

Natural History, Smithsonian Institute. Atoll Research Bulletin, No. 330, January. Hein, J.R., F.L. Wong, and D.L Moseir. 1999. Bathymetry of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and

Vicinity. US Geological Survey Map MF-2324 (Version 1.1). Hemond, H.F. 1994. Chemical Fate and Transport in the Environment. Academic Press, Inc., San

Diego, CA. Ketten, D.R. 1998. Marine Mammal Auditory Systems: A Summary of Audiometric and Anatomical

Data and its Implications for Underwater Acoustic Impacts. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-256. Issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. September.

Lang, V.I., et al. 2002. Assessment of Perchlorate Releases in Launch Operations II. Aerospace Report

No. TR-2003 (1306)-1. Prepared by The Aerospace Corporation under contract to the US Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. December 1.

Lang, V.I., et al. 2003. Assessment of Perchlorate Releases in Launch Operations III. Aerospace Report

No. TR-2003 (1306)-2. Prepared by The Aerospace Corporation under contract to the US Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. September 18.

88

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/

https://www.smdc.army.mil/KWAJ/Hourglass/issues/07Issues/Hourglass04-21-07.pdf


Leventis, R.M. 2007. Personal communication and launch rate forecast data provided by 30 SW/XPR, Vandenberg AFB, CA. November 26.

Levi, B.G. 1988. “Ozone Depletion at the Poles: The Hole Story Emerges.” Physics Today. July. Missile Defense Agency (MDA). 1999. Wake Island Launch Center Supplemental Environmental

Assessment. October. Missile Defense Agency (MDA). 2005. Mobile Sensors Environmental Assessment. September 26. Missile Defense Agency (MDA). 2007a. Ballistic Missile Defense Program (BMDS) Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). January. Missile Defense Agency (MDA). 2007b. Wake Island Supplemental Environmental Assessment.

February. Missile Defense Agency (MDA). 2008. Final Biological Assessment for Kinetic Energy Interceptor

Program from Launch Facilities 06 and 576-E, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. December.

Naputi, J.D. 2007. Personal communication and launch rate forecast data provided by 30 CES/CEVP,

Vandenberg AFB, CA. May 23. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2002. Final Environmental Assessment for

Launch of NASA Routine Payloads on Expendable Launch Vehicles from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. June.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 1969. Public Law 91-190 as amended (PL 94-52, PL 94-

83, and PL 97-258), 42 USC 4321-4347. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2007. Recovery Plan for the Hawaiian Monk Seal

(Monachus schauinslandi). August. URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/hawaiianmonkseal.htm, accessed February 19, 2009.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. Stratospheric Ozone—Monitoring

and Research in NOAA. March 20. URL: http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov/index.htm, accessed February 19, 2009.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009a. Marine Mammals information

provided by the NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/, accessed February 19, 2009.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009b. Papahānaumokuākea Marine

National Monument. URL: http://hawaiireef.noaa.gov/welcome.html, accessed February 19. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2009c. NWHI Downloadable Summary

Files provided by NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. URL: http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coralreef/nwhi/, accessed February 19.

89

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/hawaiianmonkseal.htm

http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov/index.htm

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/

http://hawaiireef.noaa.gov/welcome.html

http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coralreef/nwhi/


National Research Council. 2005. Marine Mammal Populations and Ocean Noise: Determining When Noise Causes Biologically Significant Effects. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

National Safety Council. 2009. Odds of Death Due to Injury, United States, 2005. URL:

http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx, accessed January 6, 2009. Northrop Grumman Mission Systems (Northrop Grumman). 2005. Transportation and Handling Plan

for SR118 / SR119 / SR120 Support—Vandenberg Air Force Base. January. Office of the Chief of Transportation. 2007. Registry of Army Vessel Names. Fort Eustis, Virginia.

May 1. Office of the President. 1979. Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal

Actions. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. January. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2009. PFMC web home page. URL:

http://www.pcouncil.org/, accessed March 18, 2009. Range Commanders Council (RCC). 2007. Common Risk Criteria Standard for National Test Ranges,

RCC Standard 321-07. June. Republic of the Marshall Islands Economic Policy, Planning, and Statistics Office (RMI EPPSO). 2005.

Republic of the Marshall Islands Statistical Yearbook 2004, 17th Edition. URL: http://www.rmigovernment.org/documents.jsp?catid=Statistics, accessed February 19, 2009.

Republic of the Marshall Islands Embassy to the United States (RMI Embassy). 2005. Information on

the RMI. URL: http://www.rmiembassyus.org/, accessed February 19, 2009. Republic of the Marshall Islands Office of Environmental Planning and Policy Coordination (RMI

OEPPC). 2008. Republic of the Marshall Islands Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanism. URL: http://biormi.org/index_nav_left.shtml?en/atols.shtml, accessed February 19, 2009.

Ridgway, S.H., E.G. Wever, J.G. McCormick, J. Palin and J.H. Anderson. 1969. “Hearing in the Giant

Sea Turtle, Chelonia mydas.” Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 64, pp. 884-890.

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). 2007. 2007 Clean Air Plan – Santa

Barbara County’s Plan to Maintain the Federal 8-Hour Ozone Standard and Attain the State 1-hour Ozone Standard (Draft).

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). 2009a. The SBCAPCD web site for

air quality conditions and regulatory information. URL: http://www.sbcapcd.org/Default.htm, accessed February 19, 2009.

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). 2009b. SBCAPCD Rules and

Regulations. URL: http://www.sbcapcd.org/rules/dlrules.htm, accessed February 19, 2009. Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC). 2008. Overpressure from Sonic Boom Generated by Falcon

Hypersonic Test Vehicle 2. January 28.

90

http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx

http://www.pcouncil.org/

http://www.rmigovernment.org/documents.jsp?catid=Statistics

http://www.rmiembassyus.org/

http://biormi.org/index_nav_left.shtml?en/atols.shtml

http://www.sbcapcd.org/Default.htm

http://www.sbcapcd.org/rules/dlrules.htm


Space and Missile Systems Center, Detachment 12/RPD (SMC Det 12/RPD). 2005. Electronic communication, data, and information. September 13 and 22.

Space and Missile Systems Center, Detachment 12/RPD (SMC Det 12/RPD). 2006. Electronic

communication and information. June 16. SRS Technologies (SRS). 2000. Acoustic Measurement of the 17 August 2000 Titan IV B-28 Launch and

Quantitative Analysis of Auditory and Behavioral Responses for Selected Pinnipeds on Vandenberg Air Force Base and San Miguel Island, CA. Prepared for the USAF. December.

SRS Technologies (SRS). 2001a. Acoustic Measurements of the 21 November 2000 Delta II EO-1

Launch and Quantitative Analysis of Behavioral Responses of Pacific Harbor Seals, Brown Pelicans and Southern Sea Otters on Vandenberg Air Force Base and Selected Pinnipeds on San Miguel Island, CA. Prepared for USAF. March.

SRS Technologies (SRS). 2001b. Acoustic Measurements of the 8 September 2001 Atlas IIAS MLV-10

Launch and Quantitative Analysis of Behavioral Responses of Pacific Harbor Seals, Western Snowy Plovers, and California Brown Pelicans on Vandenberg Air Force Base, and Selected Pinnipeds on San Miguel Island, California. Prepared for the USAF. November.

Suter, A.H. 2002. “Construction Noise: Exposure, Effects, and the Potential for Remediation; A Review

and Analysis.” American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 63:768-789. November/December.

Thomas, P.E.J. (ed.). 1989. Report of the Northern Marshall Islands Natural Diversity and Protected

Areas Survey, 7-24 September 1988. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, East West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. March.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2009. Tentative list of

Sites Nominated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. URL: http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/, accessed February 19, 2009.

United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC).

1990. WCMC Site Sheet on Bikar Atoll. URL: http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/sites/pa/0375w.htm, accessed February 19, 2009.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2008. Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on

Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts. URL: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf, accessed February 19, 2009.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Historic American Engineering Record: Documentation of Three

Peacekeeper Facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. Document No. ERDC/CERL TR-03-Draft. November.

US Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command (USASMDC/

ARSTRAT). 2006. Environmental Standards and Procedures for US Army Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) Activities in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 10th Edition. January.

US Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command (USASMDC/

ARSTRAT). 2007. SpaceX Falcon Program Environmental Assessment. September 27.

91

http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/

http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/sites/pa/0375w.htm

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf


US Army Space and Strategic Defense Command (USASSDC). 1993. Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Actions at US Army Kwajalein Atoll. December. US Army Strategic Defense Command (USASDC). 1991. Extended Range Intercept Technology

Environmental Assessment. September. US Department of the Air Force (USAF). 1992. Environmental Assessment for Department of Energy

(DOE) Reentry Vehicles, Flight Test Program, US Army Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands. August 4.

US Department of the Air Force (USAF). 1995. Environmental Assessment for the California Spaceport,

Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. February 28. US Department of the Air Force (USAF). 1997. Final Environmental Assessment for Issuance of a

Letter of Authorization for the Incidental Take of Marine Mammals for Programmatic Operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. July 11.

US Department of the Air Force (USAF). 1998. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Evolved

Expendable Launch Vehicle Program. April. US Department of the Air Force (USAF). 2000. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program. March. US Department of the Air Force (USAF). 2001. Final Environmental Assessment for US Air Force

Quick Reaction Launch Vehicle Program. January 22. US Department of the Air Force (USAF). 2004. Final Environmental Assessment for Minuteman III

Modification. December. US Department of the Air Force (USAF). 2006. Final Environmental Assessment for the Orbital/Sub-

Orbital Program. July. US Department of the Air Force (USAF). 2007a. Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP), 32

CFR Part 989 and technical correcting amendments in 72 FR 37105. US Department of the Air Force (USAF). 2007b. Final Environmental Assessment for Rapid Attack

Identification, Detection, and Reporting System—Block 10. May. US Department of the Navy (USN). 2008a. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas

Environmental Impact Statement–Hawaii Range Complex. May. US Department of the Navy (USN). 2008b. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas

Environmental Impact Statement–Shock Trial of the Mesa Verde (LPD 19). May. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007a. AirData: Access to Air Pollution Data. URL:

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html, accessed February 19, 2009. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007b. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions

and Sinks: 1990 – 2005. EPA 430-R-07-002. April 15.

92

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html


US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2009. Climate Change Basic Information website. URL: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html#emissions, accessed February 19, 2009.

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Biological Opinion for the California Spaceport,

Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California (1-8-94-F-30). February 21. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Biological Opinion for the Spaceport Launch Program,

Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California (1-8-99-F-83R). October 21. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Biological Opinion for the Second Relocatable In-Flight

Interceptor Communications System Data Terminal Project, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California (1-8-07-F-56). October 5.

Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). 2002. Programmatic Agreement between Vandenberg Air Force

Base, California and the California State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding the Management of Exceptionally Important Cold War Historic Properties under the Jurisdiction of Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. July

Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). 2005. Vandenberg Air Force Base General Plan. 30th Civil

Engineering Squadron. Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). 2007a. Base Airfield Operations, 30 SWI 13-201. March 30. Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). 2007b. Unpublished 2006 air emissions data provided by 30

CES/CEVC. August 28. Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). 2007c. Vandenberg Air Force Base 2007 General Plan. 30th

Space Wing. August 28. Vavrek, R.J., R. Kithil, R.L. Holle, J. Allsopp, and M.A. Cooper. 2008. The Science of Thunder.

National Lighting Safety Institute. URL: http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_info/thunder2.html, accessed February 19, 2009.

Wang, J.C. 2008. Personal communications and information provided by The Aerospace Corporation, El

Segundo, CA. January 17. World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 2006. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006.

WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project—Report No. 50, Geneva. URL: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2006/, accessed February 19, 2009.

Yakuma, S. 2008. Personal communication and information on the Raft Scoring System provided by

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. June 12.

93

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html#emissions

http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_info/thunder2.html

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2006/



94


95

6.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED

The following agencies, organizations, and individuals were consulted or provided information during the preparation of the EA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA

Terry Hamilton Steve Yakuma NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service

Gerry Davis, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Honolulu, HI Kenneth Hollingshead, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD Donald Hubner, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Honolulu, HI Candace Nachman, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD John Naughton, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Honolulu, HI US Army Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands

Kelly Busquets, Directorate of Public Works Terri Hibberts, KRS Environmental Jeanette Johnson, KRS Cathy Madore, KRS Environmental Suzanne Pyle, KRS Environmental US Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Huntsville, AL

Leah Bishop, SMDC-EN-VE Tom Craven, SMDC-EN-VN Julia Elliott, SMDC-EN-VN Randy Gallien, SMDC-EN-V David Hasley, SMDC-EN-VN Sharon Mitchell, SMDC-EN-VE Cindy Van Rassen, SMDC-LC US Fish and Wildlife Service

Kevin Foster, Pacific Islands Office, Honolulu, HI Beth Flint, Pacific Islands Office, Honolulu, HI Michael Molina, Pacific Islands Office, Honolulu, HI Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA

Amena Atta, 30 CES/CEVR James Carucci, 30 CES/CEVNC Andrew Edwards, 30 CES/CEVP Rhys Evans, 30 CES/CEVN Rose Leventis, 30 SW/XPR



96


US Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center—Acquisition Civil/Environmental Engineering representatives responsible for managing the development of the EA are listed below:

Thomas T. Huynh, HTV-2 Environmental Manager, SMC/EAFV, Los Angeles AFB

Leonard A. Aragon, HTV-2 Environmental Support, SMC/EAFV, Los Angeles AFB

Mary Ellen Vojtek, Environmental Compliance Support, Aerospace Corporation

Johnson C. Wang, Environmental Compliance Support, Aerospace Corporation

Shaun P. Brown, Environmental Compliance Support, Aerospace Corporation

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency representatives responsible for HTV-2 information and assistance during development of the EA are listed below:

LtCol Jeffrey Sherk, USAF, DARPA Tactical Technology Office

Ron Schena, ASTi,

Dale Shell, Schafer Corporation

The following contractors prepared the EA on behalf of the US Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center:

Name/Position Degrees Years of

Experience

Teledyne Solutions, Inc.

Beverly Cannon, Senior Systems Engineer

MS, Microbiology, Memphis State University BSE, Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of

Alabama in Huntsville BS, Medical Technology, University of Tennessee BS, Biology, Indiana State University

20

Frank J. Chapuran, Jr., PE, Program Manager for Environmental & Engineering

MS, Electrical Engineering, Purdue University MS, Construction Management, Purdue University BS, General Engineering, US Military Academy

38

Joseph B. Kriz, Senior Environmental Analyst

BA, Geoenvironmental Studies, Shippensburg University

BS, Biology, Shippensburg University 24

Mary Lou Kriz, Principal Technologist

BA, Geoenvironmental Studies, Shippensburg University

BS, Biology, Shippensburg University 14

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

97


Years of Name/Position Degrees

Experience

Margaret Lindsey, Environmental Engineer

BSE, Civil Engineering, University of Alabama in Huntsville

BS, Biology, University of Alabama in Huntsville 4

Jacqueline M. Marriott Co-op Analyst

BS, Civil Engineering, University of Alabama in Huntsville (in progress)

1

Jenise M. Showers, Senior Systems Engineer

MBA, Business Management, Alabama A&M University

BS, Electrical Engineering, University of Alabama, Huntsville

15

Erica D. Zamensky, Environmental Analyst

MA, Outdoor Recreation/Natural Resource Planning, University of New Mexico

BS, English, Radford University 14

LPES, Inc. (for Tetra Tech, Inc.)

Timothy Lavallee, PE, Principal/Senior Engineer

MS, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tufts University

BS, Mechanical Engineering, Northeastern University 16

98


8.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST The following is a list of agencies, organizations, and libraries that were sent a copy of the Draft EA/Draft FONSI for Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 Flight Tests. Federal Agencies National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Regional Office, Honolulu, HI National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Regional Office, Long Beach, CA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National

Monument Office, Honolulu, HI US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco, CA US Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, Honolulu, HI US Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, CA State and Local Agencies California Coastal Commission, San Francisco, CA California Department of Fish and Game, Santa Barbara, CA California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, CA California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, San Luis Obispo, CA Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, Santa Barbara, CA University of California, Santa Barbara, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology,

Santa Barbara, CA Republic of the Marshall Islands RMI Environmental Protection Authority Organizations California Native Plant Society, Los Osos, CA Environmental Defense Center, Santa Barbara, CA La Purisima Audubon Society, Lompoc, CA Sierra Club, Santa Barbara, CA Libraries Alele Museum, Library, and National Archives, Majuro, RMI Davidson Library, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA Grace Sherwood Library, USAKA/RTS Lompoc Public Library, Lompoc, CA Roi-Namur Library, USAKA/RTS Santa Barbara Public Library, Santa Barbara, CA Santa Maria Public Library, Santa Maria, CA

99


100



APPENDIX A

AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

A-1


A-2


A-3


A-4


A-5


A-6


A-7


A-8


A-9


A-10


A-11


A-12


A-13


A-14


A-15


A-16


A-17


A-18

Electronic Message from NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service -----Original Message----- From: Candace Nachman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:16 AM To: Evans, Rhys M Civ USAF AFSPC 30CES/CEVNN Cc: Monica DeAngelis Subject: Re: Vandenberg status check (another one) Dear Rhys, Thank you for sending this email reminder. I'm sorry I hadn't gotten back to you sooner. I have reviewed the letter you submitted to our office regarding the HTV activity. Based on the information provided in that letter regarding the launch azimuth and projected path of the launch vehicle, it appears that there will not be a sonic boom of greater than 1 psf over San Miguel Island. Since your regulations only require monitoring at SMI when a sonic boom of greater than 1 psf is expected, monitoring for this particular launch activity is not required on the Island. However, you all are still required to conduct the necessary monitoring on Vandenberg, as required by the regulations. If you have any further questions or concerns about this particular activity, please do not hesitate to contact me via email or the phone. Candace


APPENDIX B

SPECIES OF CONCERN AND OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES ON

SOUTH VANDENBERG AFB, CA

B-1


Table B-1. Species of Concern and Other Protected Species Potentially Occurring Near the Commercial Spaceport on South Vandenberg AFB, CA1


CA Status

Habitat Known Locations on Base

Plants

Black flowered figwort Scrophularia atrata - SOC Coastal sage scrub, chaparral Widespread on base

Sand mesa (shagbark) manzanita

Arctostaphylos rudis - SOC Chaparral Widespread on base

Straight-awned spineflower Chorizanthe rectispina - SOC Chaparral, coastal scrub

Dune larkspur Delphinium parryi ssp blochmaniae - SOC Chaparral, coastal dunes

Kellog's horkelia Horkelia cuneata ssp sericea - SOC Chaparral, coastal scrub Widespread on base

Reptiles/Amphibians

Western spadefoot toad Scaphiopus hammondii - SOC Grassland, vernal pools Dormant underground during dry season

Southwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata pallida - SOC Perennial lakes, ponds, streams; eggs laid in upland areas near water

Hatchlings overwinter in nest; move to aquatic sites March-April

California horned lizard Phyrnosoma coronatum frontale - SOC Most habitats with loose substrates for burrowing

Silvery legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra - SOC Sparsely vegetated coastal scrub and chaparral

Birds 1

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis - SOC Open country

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugea SOC SOC Open, dry grassland

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SOC SOC Semi-open country with posts, wires, trees, scrub

Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza belli belli - SOC Open chaparral Associated with successional (burned) habitat

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos FP SOC Cliffs, large trees in open areas

Ashy storm-petrel Oceanodroma homochroa SOC SOC Rock outcrops, coastal bluffs

Northern harrier Cicus cyaneus - SOC Open grassland, coastal sage scrub, marshes, agricultural areas

B-2


B-3

Table B-1. Species of Concern and Other Protected Species Potentially Occurring Near the Commercial Spaceport on South Vandenberg AFB, CA1


CA Status

Habitat Known Locations on Base

Osprey Pandion haliaetus - SOC Lakes, ponds, sloughs, river mouths, nearshore ocean waters

Merlin Falco columbarius - SOC Open grassland, agricultural areas, sloughs, and beaches

Black oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani SOC - Rock outcrops, coastal bluffs

Rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca monocerata - SOC Rock outcrops, coastal bluffs

Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis SOC - Scrub habitats

Mammals (includes near-shore waters)

California sea lion Zalophus californianus MMPA - Coastal waters and rocky shorelines

Point Sal, Point Pedernales, Point Arguello, and Rocky Point haul-out sites

Pacific harbor seal Phoca vitulina richardsi MMPA - Coastal waters and rocky shorelines

Most haul-out sites along the base coastline

Northern elephant seal Mirounga angustirostris MMPA - Coastal waters and rocky shorelines

Occasional visitor to South Base haul-out sites, including Rocky Point

Townsend's western big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii - SOC Rocky outcroppings, man-made structures

Upper Honda Canyon, Swordfish Cave, and Shuman Creek

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus - SOC Rocky outcroppings, arid caves, man-made structures

Upper Honda Canyon, Swordfish Cave, 13th & Santa Ynez River

San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia - SOC Coastal sage scrub, prickly pear cactus

Notes: 1 For a list of threatened and endangered species, refer to Table 3-5 in the EA.

SOC = Species of Concern FP = Fully Protected MMPA = Protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act

Source: USAF, 2006



B-4


APPENDIX C

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES OCCURING ON LAND AND WITHIN THE SHALLOW WATERS OF

THE REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

C-1


Table C-1. Special Status Species Occurring on Land and within the Shallow Waters of the Republic of the Marshall Islands

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Marine Mammals Dugong Dugong dugon E

Birds Ratak Micronesian Pigeon Ducula oceania ratakensis RS

Mottled Petrel Pterodroma inexpectata MBCA

Wedge-Tailed Shearwater Puffinus pacificus MBCA

Sooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus MBCA

White-Tailed Tropicbird Phaethon lepturus MBCA

Red-Tailed Tropicbird Phaethon rubricauda MBCA

Brown Booby Sula leucogaster MBCA

Red-Footed Booby Sula sula MBCA

Great Frigatebird Fregata minor MBCA

Pacific Reef Heron Egretta sacra MBCA

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis MBCA, CITES

Canada Goose Branta canadensis MBCA

Green-Winged Teal Anas crecca MBCA, CITES

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos MBCA

Northern Pintail Anas acuta MBCA, CITES

Garganey Anas querquedula MBCA, CITES

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata MBCA, CITES

Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula MBCA

Black-Bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola MBCA

Lesser Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica MBCA

Mongolian Plover Charadrius mongolus MBCA

Common Ringed or Charadrius hiaticula MBCA

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus MBCA

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca MBCA

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes MBCA

Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis MBCA

Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola MBCA

Wandering Tattler Heteroscelus incanus MBCA

Grey-Tailed Tattler Heteroscelus brevipes MBCA

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus MBCA

Bristle-Thighed Curlew Numenius tahitiensis MBCA

Black-Tailed Godwit Limosa limosa MBCA

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica MBCA

Bar-Tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica MBCA

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres MBCA

Sanderling Calidris alba MBCA

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos MBCA

Sharp-Tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata MBCA

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea MBCA

Ruff Philomachus pugnax MBCA

Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan MBCA

Black-Naped Tern Sterna sumatrana MBCA

C-2


Table C-1. Special Status Species Occurring on Land and within the Shallow Waters of the Republic of the Marshall Islands

Common Name Scientific Name Status Little Tern Sterna albifrons MBCA

Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata MBCA

Brown Noddy Anous stolidus MBCA

Black Noddy Anous minutus MBCA

White Tern Gygis alba MBCA

Great Crested Tern Sterna bergii MBCA

Fork-Tailed Swift Apus pacificus MBCA

Long-tailed Cuckoo Eudynamis taitensis MBCA

Sea Turtles Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas T, RS

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta T, RS

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle Lapidochelys olivacea T, RS

Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea E, RS

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E, RS

Fish Napoleon wrasse Cheilinus undulatus SOC

Giant grouper Epinephalus lanceolatus SOC

Giant coral trout Plectropomus laevis SOC

Mollusks Top Shell Snail Trochus niloticus RS

Top Shell Snail Trochus maximus RS

Giant Clam Tridacna gigas CITES

Giant Clam Tridacna maxima CITES

Giant Clam Tridacna squamosa CITES

Giant Clam Tridacna spp. CITES

Giant Clam Hippopus hippopus CITES

Giant Finger Shell Lambis truncata CITES

Spider Conch Shell Lambis scorpius CITES

Black-Lip Mother of Pearl Oyster Pinctada margaritifera RS

Sponges All sponge species occurring within the RMI RS

Coral Various coral species listed in Table 3-4G.1 of the UES CITES

Notes: E = Endangered T = Threatened RS = Protected under RMI Statute MBCA = Protected under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act CITES = Protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora SOC = Species of Concern

Source: USASMDC/ARSTRAT, 2006.

C-3


C-4



APPENDIX D

AIR EMISSIONS METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS

D-1


D.1 METHODOLOGY All HTV-2 program related direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants for site modifications, pre-launch preparations (including local rocket motor transportation), launch, and post-launch activities at Vandenberg AFB were estimated. Detailed methodologies and emission calculations for each phase of activities are contained herein. D.1.1 Site Modification Equipment Emissions Pollutant emissions resulting from activities associated with site modifications were estimated. Site modifications can include use of various vehicles and equipment, including portable generators, forklifts, air compressors, cranes, and trucks. Emissions from the site modification activities were estimated based on the projected activity schedule, the number of vehicles/pieces of equipment, and vehicle/equipment utilization rates (Table D-1). Emission factors for heavy-duty diesel equipment were obtained from CARB’s Off-road Mobile Source Emission Factors (CARB, 2008b). The following formula was used to calculate hourly emissions from non-road engine sources, including cranes, forklifts, and the like:

E = n x EF where E = emission in pounds (lb)/day n = hours/day of equipment operation EF = off-road mobile source emission factor in lb/hour

D.1.2 On-road Vehicle Operations The emissions due to site modification worker commutes, employee vehicle, and delivery/service trucks used were included in the analysis. Emission factors for motor vehicles were taken from the CARB’s On-Road Emission Factors (CARB, 2008a). A sample calculation for the annual emission rate for NOx from an on-road vehicle is presented below:

Additional employees = 50 Number of trips/day = 2 Number of days/year = 80 Average vehicle commute distance = 35 miles On-road emission factor = 0.001 lb/mile Annual emission level = 50 x 2 x 80 x 35 x 0.001/2000 lb/ton = 0.14 ton/year

D.1.3 Emissions from Paints, Architectural Coatings, and Adhesives Emission factors relating emissions to total square footage (sqft) were used to estimate VOC emissions from architectural coating activities, primarily painting, and from launch vehicle assembly activities. VOC content was obtained from SBCAPCD Rules 323 (Architectural Coatings) and 353 (Adhesives and Sealants) (SBCAPCD, 1999, 2001). The following formula was used to calculate emissions from such activities:

D-2


Table D-1. Site Modification Emissions

Equipment Use Equipment Type Units Days Hours/Day Hours Forklifts Composite 1 30 7 210 Other Material Handling Equipment Composite 1 30 7 210

Equipment Emission Factors (lb/hour) Equipment CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Forklifts Composite 0.2422 0.5982 0.0799 0.0006 0.0324 0.0324 54.4 Other Material Handling Equipment Composite 0.6041 1.7655 0.1952 0.0015 0.0786 0.0786 141.2

Equipment Emissions (tons) Equipment CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Forklifts Composite 0.0254 0.0628 0.0084 0.0001 0.0034 0.0034 5.7 Other Material Handling Equipment Composite 0.0634 0.1854 0.0205 0.0002 0.0083 0.0083 14.8 Total Equipment Emissions 0.0889 0.2482 0.0289 0.0002 0.0117 0.0117 20.5

Painting VOC Content 1.25 lb/gal Coverage 400 sqft/gal Emission Factor 0.003125 lb/sqft

Building/Facility Surface

Area [sqft] VOC [lb] VOC [tons]

Building 1900 5000 15.625 0.0078125 Total 5000 15.625 0.0078125

Delivery of Equipment, Supplies, and Services Number of Deliveries 1 Number of Trips 2 Miles / Trip 30 Days of Site Modifications 30 Total Miles 1800 Pollutant (lb/mile) CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Emission Factor (lb/mile) 0.0219 0.0237 0.0030 0.0000 0.0009 0.0007 2.7 Total Emissions (lb) 39.51 42.68 5.39 0.05 1.54 1.33 4895.0 Total Emissions (tons) 0.0198 0.0213 0.0027 0.0000 0.0008 0.0007 2.4

Worker Commutes Number of Workers 10 Number of Trips 2 Miles / Trip 30 Days of Site Modifications 30 Total Miles 18000 Pollutant (lb/mile) CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Emission Factor (lb/mile) 0.0105 0.0011 0.0011 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 1.1 Total Emissions (lb) 189.87 19.85 19.43 0.19 1.53 0.95 19791.6 Total Emissions (tons) 0.0949 0.0099 0.0097 0.0001 0.0008 0.0005 9.9

Site Modification Emissions Roll-Up (tons) Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Equipment 0.0889 0.2482 0.0289 0.0002 0.0117 0.0117 20.5 Painting 0.0000 0.0000 0.0078 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0 Delivery of Equipment, Supplies, and Services 0.0198 0.0213 0.0027 0.0000 0.0008 0.0007 2.4 Worker Commutes 0.0949 0.0099 0.0097 0.0001 0.0008 0.0005 9.9

Total Site Modification Emissions 0.2036 0.2795 0.0491 0.0003 0.0132 0.0128 32.9

Sources: CARB, 2008a, 2008b; SBCAPCD, 2001.

D-3


E = [(F x G) / 1000] x H where E = emissions of VOCs from architectural coatings F = lb of VOC emissions/gallon (gal) G = total area to be coated in sqft H = paint or coating coverage in sqft/gal

A sample calculation for architectural coating VOC emissions during modifications of an example facility is provided below:

E = 0.83 [lb/gal] x 100,000 [sqft] / 400 [sqft/gal] / 2,000 [lb/ton] = 0.104 tons

D.1.4 Emissions from Helicopter Operations Emission factors relating emissions to total helicopter operations on the day of the launch were estimated. Emission factors were taken from the Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) v. 5.0.2 (FAA, 2009). Although the exact type of aircraft to make the safety sweeps is not specified at this time, the UH-1N helicopter was used for the emission calculations. These activities and their associated emissions are extremely limited and no substantial change is expected regardless of what aircraft is used. The following formula was used to calculate emissions from the helicopters:

E = EF x N where E = Helicopter emissions EF = Emission per operation (landing and take-off [LTO] or 90 minute flight) N = Number of Operations

A sample calculation for helicopter emissions from 20 flights is provided below:

E = 1.30 [lb/operation] x 20 [operations] / 2000 [lb/ton] = 0.0130 tons of emissions

D.1.5 Emissions from the Minotaur IV Lite Booster The Minotaur IV Lite uses the same three-stage booster as a Peacekeeper ICBM (SR-118, SR-119, and SR-120 motors). Emissions for the Minotaur IV Lite booster were developed from fuel chemistry and molar fractional analysis of the solid rocket propellant used in the Peacekeeper booster (SMC Det 12/RPD, 2005, 2006). The following formula was used to calculate emissions from the launch vehicle:

E = %M x T where E = Booster emissions %M = Percentage in the products of combustion T = Total mass of propellant

A sample calculation for CO2 from the launch vehicle is provided below:

ECO2 = 2.44 [%CO2] x 16400 [lb of propellant] / 2000 [lb/ton] = 0.2 tons CO2

D-4


D.2 EMISSION ESTIMATIONS D.2.1 Site Modifications, Rocket Motor Transportation, and Pre-Launch Preparations All direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants for the site modifications and pre-launch preparations (including local rocket motor transportation) were estimated (Table D-2). Air emissions for pre-launch activities would include:

Combustive emissions from equipment used for Building 1900 modifications Painting/corrosion control efforts from refurbishing activities at Building 1900 Emissions from delivery of equipment, supplies, and services Employee commuting during facility modifications, pre-launch, and post-launch activities Emissions from transporting booster motors, components, and equipment to Vandenberg AFB Emissions from transporting the HTV-2 vehicles and equipment to the launch site Use of solvent/paints/adhesives during launch vehicle integration

D.2.2 Launch Activities In the hours before the launch, helicopters (as well as remote sensors) could be used to verify that the hazard areas are clear of non-mission-essential aircraft, vessels, and personnel. All direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants for the helicopter exhaust emissions and from the Minotaur IV Lite booster for one launch were estimated (Table D-3). In addition to criteria pollutants, the products of combustion from the booster would also include other common products of combustion including aluminum oxide, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. D.2.3 Post-Launch Operations In the hours and days following each launch, a general safety check and cleanup of the launch site would occur. All direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants for worker commutes, the removal of equipment from the launch sites, and general refurbishment of launch facilities were estimated (Table D-4). D.2.4 Overall Project Emissions All direct and indirect emissions of criteria pollutants for the site modifications, pre-launch preparations (including local rocket motor transportation), launch, and post-launch activities were estimated (Table D-5). Under the Proposed Action, two HTV-2 flight tests would occur, with the possibility of both launches occurring in the same year. This analysis included all pre-launch, launch, and post-launch activities for two full launch cycles, plus building modifications, as a worst-case scenario.

D-5


Table D-2. Pre-launch Emissions for a Single Launch

Delivery of Equipment, Supplies, and Services to Vandenberg AFB Number of Deliveries 1 Number of Trips 2 Miles / Trip 30 Days of Assembly 90 Total Miles 5400 Pollutant (lb/mile) CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Emission Factor (lb/mile) 0.0219 0.0237 0.0030 0.0000 0.0009 0.0007 2.7Total Emissions (lb) 118.53 128.05 16.16 0.14 4.62 3.99 14684.9Total Emissions (tons) 0.0593 0.0640 0.0081 0.0001 0.0023 0.0020 7.3

Delivery of Equipment, Supplies, and Services to the Launch Site Number of Deliveries 1 Number of Trips 2 Miles / Trip 5 Days of Delivery to Launch Site 2 Total Miles 20 Pollutant (lb/mile) CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2


Use of Adhesives During Assembly VOC Content 3.5 lb/gal Coverage 150sqft/gal Emission Factor 0.07 lb/sqft

Activities Surface Area [sqft] VOC [lb]VOC

[tons]

Assembly 200 4.7 0.0023 Total 200 4.7 0.0023

Crane Use at Launch Site Equipment Type Units Days Hrs/Day Hours Crane 1 10 4 40 Pollutant CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Emission Factor 0.6011 1.6100 0.1778 0.0014 0.0715 0.0715 128.7Total Emissions (tons) 0.0120 0.0322 0.0036 0.0000 0.0014 0.0014 2.6

Worker Commutes Number of Workers 20 Number of Trips 2 Miles / Trip 30 Days of Pre-launch 90 Total Miles 108000 Pollutant (lb/mile) CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2


Pre-launch Emission Roll-Up (tons) Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Delivery of Equipment, Supplies, and Services to Vandenberg AFB 0.0593 0.0640 0.0081 0.0001 0.0023 0.0020 7.3Delivery of Equipment, Supplies, and Services to the Launch Site 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 57.1Use of Adhesives During Assembly 0.0000 0.0000 0.0070 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0Crane Use at Launch Site 0.0120 0.0322 0.0036 0.0000 0.0014 0.0014 2.6Worker Commutes 0.5696 0.0596 0.0583 0.0006 0.0046 0.0029 59.4

Total Pre-launch Emissions 0.6411 0.1560 0.0769 0.0007 0.0083 0.0063 126.4


D-6


Table D-3. Flight Activity Emissions for a Single Launch

Helicopter Emissions

Number of Flights 2 CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 LTO Emission Factors (lb/operation) 1.120 7.350 0.24 1.72 0.146 0.146 LTO Emission (tons) 0.0011 0.0073 0.0002 0.0017 0.0001 0.0001 Flight Emission Factors (lb/operation) 2.97 7.59 0.33 0.00 0.000 0.000 Flight Emissions (tons) 0.00297 0.00759 0.00033 0 0 0 Total (tons) 0.0041 0.0149 0.0006 0.0017 0.0001 0.0001

Launch Emissions

Avg SR-120 Prop Mass (pound-mass [lbm]) 15584

Avg SR-119 Prop Mass (lbm) 54138 Avg SR-118 Prop Mass (lbm) 98462

Molar Mass

(grams) SR-118

(%M) SR-118

(tons) SR-119

(%M) SR-119

(tons) SR-120

(lb) SR-120

(tons) Total

(tons) Aluminum Oxide (solid) (Al2O3) 101.96 35.89% 17.67 4.32% 9.72 5005.18 2.50 29.89 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 28.01 22.13% 10.89 23.21% 5.99 5521.32 2.76 19.65 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 44.01 2.44% 1.20 1.05% 0.66 258.70 0.13 1.99 Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) 36.46 21.21% 10.44 15.74% 5.74 238.98 0.12 16.30 Water (H2O) 18.02 7.45% 3.67 8.30% 2.02 506.75 0.25 5.94 Hydrogen (H2) 2.02 2.23% 1.10 32.63% 0.60 349.78 0.17 1.88 Nitrogen (N2) 28.01 8.38% 4.13 7.99% 2.27 3774.91 1.89 8.28 Other Misc 0.27% 0.13 6.76% 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.21 Total 100.00% 49.23 100.00% 27.07 15655.62 7.83 84.13

Total Launch Emissions (tons) Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 Helicopter Emissions 0.0041 0.0149 0.0006 0.0017 0.0001 0.0001 Launch Emissions 19.6458 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.1566 4.2977

Total Launch Emissions 19.6499 0.0149 0.0006 0.0017 6.1568 4.2978

Sources: FAA 2007; SMC Det 12/RPD, 2005, 2006.

Note: Launch PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are assumed to be 10.3 and 7.2 percent total Al2O3 respectively.

D-7


Table D-4. Post-launch Emissions for a Single Launch

Removal of Equipment Number of Removals 2 Number of Trips 2 Miles / Trip 10 Days of Breakdown 10 Total Miles 400 Pollutant (lb/mile) CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Emission Factor (lb/mile) 0.0219 0.0237 0.0030 0.0000 0.0009 0.0007 2.7 Total Emissions (lb) 8.78 9.49 1.20 0.01 0.34 0.30 1087.8 Total Emissions (tons) 0.0044 0.0047 0.0006 0.0000 0.0002 0.0001 0.5

Worker Commutes Number of Workers 20 Number of Trips 2 Miles / Trip 30 Days of Breakdown 10 Total Miles 12000 Pollutant (lb/mile) CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Emission Factor (lb/mile) 0.0105 0.0011 0.0011 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 1.1 Total Emissions (lb) 126.58 13.23 12.95 0.13 1.02 0.64 13194.4 Total Emissions (tons) 0.0633 0.0066 0.0065 0.0001 0.0005 0.0003 6.6

Painting

VOC Content 1.25 lb/gallon (gal)

Coverage 400 sqft/gal Emission Factor 0.003125 lb/sqft

Building/Facility Surface Area

[sqft] VOC [lb] VOC [tons]

Launch Facility 5000 15.625 0.0078 Total 5000 15.625 0.0488

Total Post-launch Emissions (tons) Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Removal of Equipment 0.0044 0.0047 0.0006 0.0000 0.0002 0.0001 0.5 Worker Commutes 0.0633 0.0066 0.0065 0.0001 0.0005 0.0003 6.6 Painting 0.0000 0.0000 0.0488 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0

Total Post-launch Emissions 0.0677 0.0114 0.0559 0.0001 0.0007 0.0005 7.1


D-8


Table D-5. Roll-up of All Direct and Indirect Emissions Associated with the Proposed Action

Total Site Modification Emissions (tons) Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Construction Equipment 0.0889 0.2482 0.0289 0.0002 0.0117 0.0117 20.5 Painting 0.0000 0.0000 0.0078 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0 Delivery of Equipment, Supplies, and Services 0.0198 0.0213 0.0027 0.0000 0.0008 0.0007 2.4 Worker Commutes 0.0949 0.0099 0.0097 0.0001 0.0008 0.0005 9.9 Total Construction Emissions 0.2036 0.2795 0.0491 0.0003 0.0132 0.0128 32.9

Total Pre-launch Emissions for a Single Launch (tons) Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Delivery of Equipment, Supplies, and Services to Vandenberg AFB 0.0593 0.0640 0.0081 0.0001 0.0023 0.0020 7.3 Delivery of Equipment, Supplies, and Services to the Launch Site 0.0002 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 57.1 Use of Adhesives During Assembly 0.0000 0.0000 0.0070 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0 Crane Use at Launch Site 0.0120 0.0322 0.0036 0.0000 0.0014 0.0014 2.6 Worker Commutes 0.5696 0.0596 0.0583 0.0006 0.0046 0.0029 59.4 Total Pre-launch Emissions 0.6411 0.1560 0.0769 0.0007 0.0083 0.0063 126.4

Total Launch Emissions for a Single Launch (tons) Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Helicopter Emissions 0.0041 0.0149 0.0006 0.0017 0.0001 0.0001 0.0 Launch Emissions 19.6458 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.1566 4.2977 2.0 Total Launch Emissions 19.6499 0.0149 0.0006 0.0017 6.1568 4.2978 2.0

Total Post-launch Emissions for a Single Launch (tons) Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Removal of Equipment 0.0044 0.0047 0.0006 0.0000 0.0002 0.0001 0.5 Worker Commutes 0.0633 0.0066 0.0065 0.0001 0.0005 0.0003 6.6 Painting 0.0000 0.0000 0.0488 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0 Total Post-launch Emissions 0.0677 0.0114 0.0559 0.0001 0.0007 0.0005 7.1

Emissions for Entire Proposed Action for Two Launches (tons) Activity/Source CO NOx VOC SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Construction 0.204 0.279 0.049 0.000 0.013 0.013 32.9 Pre-launch 1.282 0.312 0.145 0.001 0.017 0.013 252.8 Launch 39.300 0.030 0.001 0.003 12.314 8.596 4.0 Post-launch 0.135 0.023 0.112 0.000 0.001 0.001 14.3

TOTAL EMISSIONS 40.921 0.644 0.307 0.005 12.345 8.622 303.9

D-9


D-10

D.3 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008a. EMFAC 2007 (v2.3) Emission Factors (On-Road).

URL: http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/onroad/onroad.html, accessed February 19, 2009. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008b. EMFAC 2007 (v2.3) Emission Factors (Off-Road).

URL: http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/offroad/offroad.html, accessed February 19, 2009. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2009. Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).

URL: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/models/edms_model/, accessed February 19, 2009.

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). 1999. SBCAPCD Rule 353

(Adhesives and Sealants). URL: http://www.sbcapcd.org/rules/dlrules.htm, accessed February 19, 2009.

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD). 2001. SBCAPCD Rule 323

(Architectural Coatings). URL: http://www.sbcapcd.org/rules/dlrules.htm, accessed February 19, 2009.

Space and Missile Systems Center, Detachment 12/RPD (SMC Det 12/RPD). 2005. Electronic

communication, data, and information. September 13 and 22. Space and Missile Systems Center, Detachment 12/RPD (SMC Det 12/RPD). 2006. Electronic

communication and information. June 16.

http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/onroad/onroad.html

http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/offroad/offroad.html

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aep/models/edms_model/




APPENDIX E

SONIC BOOM METHODOLOGY

E-1


The HTV-2 vehicle sonic booms were analyzed for: (1) carpet booms during horizontal flight over the Pacific Ocean and (2) focused booms during vehicle descent just prior to impact in the BOA near USAKA/RTS. Modeling was based on sonic boom code known as PCBoom3 and developed by K.J. Plotkin of Wyle Laboratories. The inputs to PCBoom3 include trajectory data and atmospheric data. For vehicle aerodynamics, built in body shapes were used. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that the shape of the HTV-2 vehicle would fall in between a blunt lifting body and a supersonic transport body shape. Thus, modeling results included both body shapes. Outputs from PCBoom3 are isopemps (focused pressure areas), which translate into peak overpressure footprints. Peak overpressures represent the highest overpressure experienced at a particular location. Figures E-1 and E-2 show resulting overpressure footprint contours for focused booms near the point of ocean impact in the BOA.

Figure E-1. Overpressure Contours for a Blunt Lifting Body Shape at an Altitude of 91,000 Feet to Ocean Impact

E-2


Figure E-2. Overpressure Contours for a Supersonic Transport Body Shape at an Altitude of 91,000 Feet to Ocean Impact

As the two figures show, the more aerodynamic supersonic transport body shape (Figure E-2) produces lower overpressures at the surface than the blunt shaped body (Figure E-1). For purposes of sonic boom analyses for the HTV-2 vehicle, an average of the resulting overpressures from the two body shapes was used. Table E-1 summarizes carpet boom modeling results and averages for locations in the over-ocean flight corridor and in the Marshall Islands based on the HTV-2 Mission A flight path trajectory data only. Mission B carpet boom values were extrapolated from the Mission A results. Table E-2 summarizes focused boom modeling results in the BOA for the HTV-2 Mission A trajectory only. It is expected that the Mission B focused boom would have similar results.

E-3


E-4

Table E-1. Carpet Boom Overpressure Calculations (psf)

Location Blunt Body Supersonic

Transport Body Average used for

HTV-2


Peak for Ground Trace 0.252 0.163 0.21

NWHI 0.20 0.10 0.15

Bikar Atoll 0.226 0.133 0.18

Taka Atoll 0.14 0.10 0.12

Utirik Atoll 0.13 0.10 0.12

Mission B Flight Path*

Peak for Ground Trace 0.252 0.163 0.21

Wake Island 0.20 0.10 0.15

Rongelap Atoll 0.13 0.10 0.12

Rongerik Atoll 0.226 0.133 0.18

* Overpressures were extrapolated from Mission A flight path results.

Table E-2. Focused Boom Overpressure Calculations (psf)

Location Blunt Body Supersonic

Transport Body Average used for

HTV-2

Maximum Overpressure (near impact point)

34.2 17.8 26.0

Minimum Overpressure (outer most contour)

0.10 0.02 0.06

References: Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC). 2008. Overpressure from Sonic Boom Generated by Falcon

Hypersonic Test Vehicle 2. January 28. Wang, J.C.T., C.P. Griffice, J.R. Edwards, and A.A. Hashad. 2008. “Underwater Overpressure from

Hypervelocity Sonic Booms.” 29th American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Aeroacoustics Conference, presented May 5.


APPENDIX F

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

F-1


Comments and Responses on the Draft Environmental Assessment for

Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 Flight Tests

This appendix contains a photocopy of the comment documents received on the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). During review of the Draft EA, the DARPA and USAF received only one comment letter. In the following letter, comment numbers have been added along the right margin and are numbered sequentially. A corresponding list of comment responses is provided immediately following the letter. Note that in addition to the comment responses, the text of the Final EA has been revised, as appropriate, to reflect the concerns expressed in the comments.

F-2


F-3

1

2

3


F-4


RESPONSES TO SANTA BARBARA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT COMMENTS (April 13, 2009) Response to Comment #1 To emphasize that all HTV-2 operations at Vandenberg AFB would comply with SBCAPCD rules and regulations (including permit requirements), discussions on compliance have been expanded in Sections 4.1.1.1.1 and 4.1.1.1.2, in addition to the existing discussions in Section 4.1.1.1.3. In regards to emergency/standby generator engines, Sections 2.1.2.1.3 and 4.1.1.1.1 of the EA state that the emergency power generator to be used for launch support at Vandenberg AFB would be “permitted by the SBCAPCD or registered under the CARB Portable Equipment Registration Program.” Response to Comment #2 Table 2-5 has been corrected in identifying 12.3 tons (11.2 metric tons) of total particulate matter in association with the Proposed Action at Vandenberg AFB. This information corresponds to the values presented in Table 4-2 and Appendix D (Table D-5) of the EA. Response to Comment #3 In accordance with current CAAQS and NAAQS, Table 3-1 has been updated for state NO2 standards and the federal PM10 annual arithmetic mean standard was deleted.

F-5


F-6


environmental assessment for hypersonic technology vehicle 2 … · 2011-10-11 · minotaur iv lite...

Documents